|
|
Post by duckman on Apr 18, 2009 15:04:48 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxf1ex on Apr 18, 2009 15:21:38 GMT -8
Granted, I have my own questions about what has happen here. Seeing this little statement (But the panel only applied these standards going forward, severely reducing the universe of additional absentees that the Coleman team could hope to have included. In the end, the three judges allowed only about 350 additional absentees to be counted. The panel also did nothing about the hundreds, possibly thousands, of absentees that have already been legally included, yet are now "illegal" according to the panel's own ex-post definition) in what you have linked too does not ease my mind one bit. As of yet, I am still waiting to see how the "judges" answer this. |
|
|
|
Post by duckman on Apr 18, 2009 15:29:40 GMT -8
Granted, I have my own questions about what has happen here. Seeing this little statement (But the panel only applied these standards going forward, severely reducing the universe of additional absentees that the Coleman team could hope to have included. In the end, the three judges allowed only about 350 additional absentees to be counted. The panel also did nothing about the hundreds, possibly thousands, of absentees that have already been legally included, yet are now "illegal" according to the panel's own ex-post definition) in what you have linked too does not ease my mind one bit. As of yet, I am still waiting to see how the "judges" answer this. MN should be seriously embarrassed. |
|
|
|
Post by msguide on Apr 18, 2009 15:48:22 GMT -8
Are you really blaming this on Democrats? If the choice had been clear on election day, this would have never been an issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxf1ex on Apr 18, 2009 16:12:21 GMT -8
I would hold the candidates (and the people of the state) at fault. It seems to me as if (and I could be wrong) that in a close race, there is always a state mandatory recount. Which in a close race I can see the need for it.
In this case, if you have not been following it, the state recount change the tally from a minus 100 to a pulse 100 (or was it around 300?)for one of the candidates. At this point it should not matter all that much, after all this is only the second counting of the votes. Placing it (so to speak) at a dead heat. To me, since it is still a very close race, a 3th recount should be automatic, giving it a best 2 out of 3 count. Which only happen when one of the candidates objected to how the votes were re-counted.
And as you an tell from what I high lighted in the above post. It seems as if the rules change during the recount. If that is the case, the people of the state should be up in arms about how the rules change during the counting of votes.
As they say, I have no dog in this fight since I do not vote in that state. But it would be nice to know how voting is done there in case in the future I might want to move there. Or, in case the same thing seems to happen in the state I vote and live in.
To me, it is not to much to ask and do your best to make sure all election are fair and honest.
|
|
|
|
Post by msguide on Apr 18, 2009 16:46:20 GMT -8
Oh, I'm totally hearing what you say about the recounting. I think it is a most contemptible way to do business. It is corrupt to the core.
However, if Republicans in general had ignored the media and fielded a formidable candidate in the first place, and if state Republicans had done more to turn out the vote, the initial count would not have made a first recount necessary. k
Nobody learned a thing from 2000.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxf1ex on Apr 18, 2009 17:05:50 GMT -8
Which is the point (I think). Be it the people not really caring about how the votes are counted, or the candidates leaving in place a system which can be bent to allowed fraud to happen.
In many cases (and I do not know if this holds true for MN) an interdependent voter can cross party lines in the primary elections. And in North Carolina if the Democrats are not running a candidate, then they are allowed to vote in the Republican primary. And that was a recent change made by the locally controlling Democrats.
This, from my point of view is not how it should work. If you are a member of a party, then in the primaries you should be restricted to voting in your parties election. If you do not like there choice, change parties.
|
|
|
|
Post by msguide on Apr 18, 2009 17:43:28 GMT -8
The major parties are the ones who determine how people qualify for the ballot and who can be on it. Both parties rot from the head. It's just nauseating.
Remember, I'm the one who uncovered vote fraud at our county convention. I'm sure it's no different in any other state.
Major parties also control redistricting, which is why liberty minded people are taking over their local parties. We gave up a chair thanks to dirty politics, but we took every other seat. Most of us have nothing to lose, so we don't give a rat's rear end what the state party tells us we "have" to do. We're done with loser politics. It's either put up a fight or die trying.
Sorry, we're watching Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, and we're just at the best part, so I'm a little over the top on the imagery.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxf1ex on Apr 18, 2009 18:10:28 GMT -8
The major parties are the ones who determine how people qualify for the ballot and who can be on it. Both parties rot from the head. It's just nauseating. Remember, I'm the one who uncovered vote fraud at our county convention. I'm sure it's no different in any other state. Major parties also control redistricting, which is why liberty minded people are taking over their local parties. We gave up a chair thanks to dirty politics, but we took every other seat. Most of us have nothing to lose, so we don't give a rat's rear end what the state party tells us we "have" to do. We're done with loser politics. It's either put up a fight or die trying. Sorry, we're watching Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, and we're just at the best part, so I'm a little over the top on the imagery. Nay worried, watching House myself. In the long run, people need to vote in the manner they deiced is best for them. Meaning that while you might support the platform of a party and become a member of it. The choice of who to vote for remains yours. And there are times when the best choice may be to cross the party lines. But not until the election should you vote outside your party's choice. However, if you are not a member of a party, then you should always vote for the best choice. Sadly, we do have people out there who will cross party lines and cast there vote for who they think would be less likely to beat the person they support. |
|
|
|
Post by msguide on Apr 18, 2009 18:18:10 GMT -8
We like House, but Hugh Laurie doesn't begin to compare with Orlando Bloom.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxf1ex on Apr 18, 2009 18:31:52 GMT -8
We like House, but Hugh Laurie doesn't begin to compare with Orlando Bloom. Not much for ether one. Just have it on for harmless noise. Thinking about watching some type of movie. But just do not feel up to it. While I enjoy sci-fi, i am in the mood for something a bit more mindless. |
|
|
|
Post by msguide on Apr 18, 2009 19:09:29 GMT -8
Now that we've totally hijacked the thread, our family really enjoyed the LOTR series. We loved the books and loved the movies. Our son in-law is a huge Tolkein fan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxf1ex on Apr 18, 2009 20:00:06 GMT -8
What  This thread was not about TV or books?  |
|
|
|
Post by Douglass on Apr 21, 2009 4:15:44 GMT -8
One of the problems i saw is they awarded a bunch of vbotes that looked liek they were straight dem but had Norm punched or circled or written whatever it was in the box and they said those people intended to vote for franken and how would they know those people intended?
|
|
|
|
Post by duckman on Apr 21, 2009 4:19:46 GMT -8
One of the problems i saw is they awarded a bunch of vbotes that looked liek they were straight dem but had Norm punched or circled or written whatever it was in the box and they said those people intended to vote for franken and how would they know those people intended? That's some of the BS that came out of Gore's crying fest in 2000. How dare they presume anything on a ballot. |
|
This thread was not about TV or books? 