Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Government Politics

Greens and Libertarians Team Up to Demand Recount 359

Posted by timothy from the pay-it-forward dept.
cyberformer writes "The Ohio election rules state that any losing candidate can demand a manual recount. Today, David Cobb and Michael Badnarik, the predidential candidates for the Green and Libertarian parties, announced that they are joining forces to do just that. A manual recount is important because it will include every ballot cast, whereas the first count only includes ballots that can be read by machine. It could even tip the state (and thus the election) from Bush to Kerry."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Greens and Libertarians Team Up to Demand Recount More

Greens and Libertarians Team Up to Demand Recount

Comments Filter:

  • Filing fee (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dtfinch ( 661405 ) * on Thursday November 11, 2004 @08:10PM (#10793838) Journal
    Funny, I didn't think the first count was done yet.

    They want $110,000 in donations [greens.org] to pay the required fees. Looks like $10 per precinct.

  • What if Kerry won? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Vokbain ( 657712 ) * on Thursday November 11, 2004 @08:10PM (#10793842) Homepage
    What would happen if it turned out Kerry won? Would Bush be forced to concede the election to Kerry?

    • Re:What if Kerry won? (Score:5, Informative)

      by phoenix.bam! ( 642635 ) on Thursday November 11, 2004 @08:15PM (#10793884)
      No one is ever forced to concede. the only reason a person makes a speech is for show. the speech itself has no legal force. If kerry does indeed win Ohio then Bush would lose those electoral votes, lose the election and be on his way back to texas in Jan '05. Even with the recount though, Kerry winning is a longshot, no need to get the hopes up.

    • Re:What if Kerry won? (Score:5, Informative)

      by whoda ( 569082 ) on Thursday November 11, 2004 @08:18PM (#10793911) Homepage
      The electoral college doesn't meet to vote until December 13th this year.
      It's not officially over until they have voted. The results of that vote aren't unsealed and counted until January 6th.

      Conceding elections is just a nice way of saying, I won't personally oppose you any more.

      If the outcome changes thru some other process and the electoral college votes Kerry into the Presidency, that's it, Bush wouldn't have to concede anything.

    • Re:What if Kerry won? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Geoffreyerffoeg ( 729040 ) on Thursday November 11, 2004 @08:26PM (#10793971)
      Bush hasn't won yet. The Electoral College hasn't voted. Theoretically, if some electors didn't vote the way they were asked to, then Kerry could win.

      Kerry felt that it was not worth for him pursuing his victory (because of the odds), so he conceded. That doesn't prevent him winning through others' efforts.

    • It would be hilarious (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @12:49PM (#10798787) Homepage Journal

      What would happen if it turned out Kerry won?

      Suddenly, the Democratic support for abolishing the electoral college, which, in the 2000 election permitted Bush to win despite Gore carrying a majority of the popular vote, would vanish in a puff of smoke.

      And it would be the Republicans complaining because a mere 60,000 vote switch in Ohio gave Kerry the presidency through the electoral college system despite Bush having won the popular vote by over 3 million.

      It would be hilarious to watch as strident principled Democrats fell silent while the vocal Republicans would begin attacking positions that they themselves previously held onto with great fervor.

      As if the whole thing weren't farcical enough already.

      • Re:It would be hilarious (Score:3, Insightful)

        by zCyl ( 14362 )
        And it would be the Republicans complaining because a mere 60,000 vote switch in Ohio gave Kerry the presidency through the electoral college system despite Bush having won the popular vote by over 3 million.

        If there are enough votes in error to cause the election to shift, then much of the rest of the country would have to be recounted for this popular vote tally to be considered valid. The unadjusted final exit polls were also showing the popular vote in the other direction.
      • Personally, as a Bush voter, I would completely support the election of Kerry if he won enough electoral votes. It's how we do things here. Clinton never won a popular majority, but I still considered him my legitimate President.

        That said, I think people are probably getting worked up over nothing. Bush won Ohio before all the absentee ballots were counted. I suspect that a recount will probably show an even wider margin of victory for Bush in that state.

        Now, call for a recount in a few other close st

  • Re: (Score:5, Funny)

    by nmec ( 810091 ) on Thursday November 11, 2004 @08:16PM (#10793893)
    It could even tip the state (and thus the election) from Bush to Kerry."
    It could but I'll eat my tinfoil hat if it does

  • Conspiracy theories taken to their natural limit! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by stevew ( 4845 ) on Thursday November 11, 2004 @08:27PM (#10793982) Journal
    I've been listening to Air America lately - and mostly what I hear is disgruntled people not wanting to believe that Bush won. The conspiracy theories out there are amazing!

    So what happens if the FIRST recount doesn't make Mr. Kerry President? Do we ask for ANOTHER recount ala 2000? 100K votes ain't that close folks!

    • Re:Conspiracy theories taken to their natural limi (Score:4, Insightful)

      by captnitro ( 160231 ) on Thursday November 11, 2004 @08:39PM (#10794084)
      Agreed. Moreover, I've been hearing too many theories about how voters were forced, deceived or generally brainwashed into voting for Bush. I've heard similar gripes about 'stupid' vs. 'smart', and of course seen the standard IQ by state chart.

      Guess what, kids: sometimes in a democracy, other people win. This is what most of the American voters wanted, and that's the way it works.

      Disclaimer: Kerry voter.
      • I can understand the Greens doing this (being socialists, they like Kerry more than Bush) but this is an incredibly stupid thing for the LP to do. The LP is just marginalizing themselves by donning tin hats. Even liberal rags like Slate have admitted that Bush won, fair and square.

        I am saddened to see the LP making fools of themselves, because I agree with a lot of libertarian ideas and vote Libertarian sometimes.

        • Re:Conspiracy theories taken to their natural limi (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Karma Farmer ( 595141 ) on Thursday November 11, 2004 @09:16PM (#10794330)
          Well, if you think libertarians like Bush, then you're beyond all reason.

          Regardless, neither party is doing this to help Kerry. They're doing it because many of us don't have a lot of faith in the election "system" in the United States. If this helps improve the process, it's worth a thousand times what they're spending to do it.

          • Re:Conspiracy theories taken to their natural limi (Score:5, Insightful)

            by ReaperOfSouls ( 523060 ) on Thursday November 11, 2004 @11:04PM (#10794968) Homepage
            Libritarians ally themselves with Republicans on in the sence that there are still many Paleo-cons out there. Bush is anything but a Paleocon, he is a neocon. Lets look.

            Libritarians hate anything that has to do with making the government bigger. Well lets look, the largest deficit(number not % of GDP, but still huge) in history.

            Libritarians are generally about liberty and human(negitive) rights. Bush and his new appointment to Attorny General think human rights are up for discussion(ala Gitmo, Abu Grab). The Patiot Act certianly doesn't make us libritarians happy campers.

            Lets see, faith based inititives, i.e funding churches do create social programs, which is no better then when the government does it.
            Heck in his 2003 budget, he proposed and increase in NEA funding, which is a hot button issue for palocons and libritarians.

            Libritarians see the purpose of the Military for defence, not nation building or premtive/preventive war. Even Bush said in 2000 that he didn't believe in nation building.

            Ultimately the only thing that Bush has done right by libritarians is cutting taxes, but all the other stuff he has done soooo out weighs that.

            I have been a libritarian for as long as I have been interested in politics. I supported and worked for campains in 1994 to put the conservatives in control of the house and senate. Heck I even voted for Bush the first time around. The fact of the matter for me is, Bush's performance has been anything but remotely close to "libritarian" ideals. This year I voted for Kerry, because at least with Kerry we would have dead lock, and if 1994-2000 is any measure, it was the only chance to stall the growth of government.
            • I think you're missing the point -- the Libs and the Greens want ALL of the votes counted to bolster thier numbers a tad. Voting for a third party is only a truly wasted vote if you use an absentee ballot, which won't be counted at all, thus not give to the party total.

            • Bush is anything but a Paleocon, he is a neocon.

              Bush may have neoconservatives on his staff, but he is not a neoconservative. He's a social conservative who spends like a Democrat (a Democrat in Republican's clothing?).

              Bush was never a neoconservative. It's my belief that after September 11th, he pulled a Kennedy and said (something along the lines of) no idea should be left off the table, and the worst thing that we can do here is nothing. (I suppose that he also took a page from Jimmy Carter's fai

    • That's pretty crap logic there. There's some significant weirdness in the automated vote counting. There's not reason to believe that a hand count would be wrong. By your logic we should object to anyone doing or asking for anything even once because they might bother you about it forever.

  • WHERE CAN I DONATE?? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Drunken_Jackass ( 325938 ) on Thursday November 11, 2004 @08:28PM (#10793993) Homepage
    I heard this story on NPR - it was just on All Things Considered tonight, so npr.org doesn't have the link up yet. At the end, they commented that the Libertarian and Green party is currently raising the ~$130,000 needed for the recount.

    Where can i donate?

    Kerry got ~45,000 vites on our Slashdot poll. If i can PayPal $5 or do a $5 credit card donation, how many other people would?

  • Nader is also asking for a recount (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Caseyscrib ( 728790 ) on Thursday November 11, 2004 @08:34PM (#10794041)
    Independent Ralph Nader [yahoo.com] is also asking for a recount in Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire, and North Carolina. Kerry won NH, Bush won the rest. Polls had Kerry ahead by 10%, but he won only by 1%. I'd like to see a recount too, because we use those optical scan ballots [commondreams.org] that have been in controversy lately.

    • Mod Parent up: New Hampshire Recount (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Noksagt ( 69097 ) on Thursday November 11, 2004 @08:43PM (#10794113) Homepage
      The New Hampshire recount will really be the most interesting one. They used the Diebold machines, there was a large difference in the exit polls & the actual votes, and Kerry already won it (so right-wingers won't object to it on partisan grounds). Moderates and all concerned about evoting should watch that state closely. Partisans should also watch it, as it could be the first domino for the states where the outcome may actually change things. If anyone contests the New Hampshire recount, quietly chuckle that they don't care about voting & just care about their man. Kerry fans might protest because he did win & Bush fans might object in anticipation of those other states.

    • Re:Nader is also asking for a recount (Score:5, Informative)

      by jemfinch ( 94833 ) on Thursday November 11, 2004 @09:17PM (#10794340) Homepage
      Funny, since Nader wasn't even on the ballot in Ohio because the signatures he (or rather, his paid "volunteers") collected for his petition to be placed on the ballot didn't hold under scrutiny, and were rejected by the Ohio Supreme Court.

      Jeremy

    • Nader was actually one of the first to demand a recount. On Tuesday, November 9, 2004, Jay Leno got his witless jab in at Nader's recount call. But, ironically, this recount will end up being little more than an academic excercise if Kerry doesn't recant his premature concession.

      Also ironic that the man (and, now, a party) who the Democrats spent so much time and money on in order to prevent appearance on the ballot are now those who ask for democracy in the form of counting all the ballots (and account

      • Reading this, I realize someone might misinterpret the reversal of concession as some kind of legally binding prerequisite. It is not, however it will not happen even if Kerry did somehow get the votes needed to win key states (and thus their electoral votes). I believe that the Democrats are firmly committed to not putting the country through a long pursuit of determining who actually won.
    • But how much accuracy can you ascribe to exit polls? I've heard alot from all sides about them not being accurate enough for close races with error margins as high as 5% (enough that 1% and 10% are pretty much the same result).
      I've also heard exit poll people even admit the polls are only 'accurate' after being reconcilled with actual count.
      Plus the fact that exit polls only measure the claims of voters who are willing to take the polls, wich may or may not be a representative subset of all voters.
    • BTW, the film mentioned in the second link, votergate [votergate.tv], is worth downloading. A torrent [bellsouth.net] is available if the main site is going slowly, though they seem to have upgraded their bandwidth.

    • Kerry was never 10 pts up in the NH [race2004.net] polls except for early last spring. Same for Ohio [race2004.net] and Florida [race2004.net]. The exit polls had Kerry up, but the state-by-state pre-election polls were remarkably accurate across the US. This suggests that the exit polls were badly flawed.

      BTW, I voted for Kerry.

  • Nationwide Recount (Score:3, Interesting)

    by adelayde ( 185757 ) on Thursday November 11, 2004 @08:36PM (#10794062) Homepage
    Personally, and interfering as one who isn't a US citizen and so has no right interfering in another country's affairs - ah but perhaps the current (sadly for another 4 years) US administration might like to respect that as well -, anyway. I reckon because a) this is so very important for the World and the American people and b) Bush and his cronies are basically a bunch of crooks, and now war criminals, that it should be essential to do a proper, manual recount of all votes cast and to have an investigation of all discrepencies (whoops we missed of a whole bunch of poor black people, never mind) before officially declaring a winner. At least that way the United States can demonstrate to the rest of the World that it is prepared to affirm it's democracy that it so willingly seems to be prepared to tout about and impose on others, heck if India can do it, so can the US.

  • Kerry? pshaw! (Score:5, Funny)

    by BortQ ( 468164 ) on Thursday November 11, 2004 @08:41PM (#10794090) Homepage Journal
    Screw Kerry, I am hoping that this tips the election in favor of Badnarik!

    Don't give up hope yet. Go Libertarians!!

    • Is this $110,000 filing fee supposed to cover the entire cost of the recount? (I can't imagine how it would.)

      If not, I really can't see where a Libertarian party that would waste Ohio taxpayers' money on this silliness has any value at all.

  • Good reason for a recount (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheSHAD0W ( 258774 ) on Thursday November 11, 2004 @08:56PM (#10794211) Homepage
    Should the votes be recounted because the Libertarians or Greens think they may win? No.

    Should the votes be recounted because Kerry may have won, and not Bush? Er, I doubt it, but maybe.

    Should the votes be recounted as a check on how well the new computerized systems tallied the votes? Definitely.

    • Parent post writes:

      Should the votes be recounted because the Libertarians or Greens think they may win? No.

      Should the votes be recounted because Kerry may have won, and not Bush? Er, I doubt it, but maybe.

      Should the votes be recounted as a check on how well the new computerized systems tallied the votes? Definitely.

      Damned straight!

    • At first when I read the /. story I thought "Give it up, already. Can't we get past this?". But then I read:

      • Should the votes be recounted as a check on how well the new computerized systems tallied the votes? Definitely.

      Someone noted (I think in a comment about the blackboxvoting.org story) that since the election is settled it's a good time to examine the process, to improve it for the future.

      I just wish there wasn't so much grandstanding about fraud when any irregularity shows up..

    • Re:Good reason for a recount (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Exactly.

      The Ohio election rules state that any losing candidate can demand a manual recount.

      They can demand it all they want, it's an impossibility. There is no physical record of the votes in many places, they are just a number in a database somewhere. Good luck trying to determine whether the number is correct or not.

      No doubt this will be lampooned by the media as them being sore losers or something. I think that it's important to highlight the fact that the election is unverifiable.

    • Re:Good reason for a recount (Score:5, Informative)

      by FleaPlus ( 6935 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @01:03AM (#10795515) Journal
      Here's what Michael Badnarik himself posted in response to some comments in his blog [badnarik.org]:

      I find the percentage of negative comments here somewhat surprising given the number of "please ask for a recount" messages that I've alread gotten. However, I'd like to clear up a serious misconception that many of you apparently have.

      This demand for a recount is not expected to change the outcome. I may be "Quixotic", but I'm not crazy. David Cobb and I have no expectation that the results of the election will be changed in the slightest. What we ARE hoping to do is to find out just how corrupt the system really is. Why bother voting for anyone if the electronic machines are going to report a pre-determined outcome.

      I saw a bumper sticker that expressed the idea very well. It said: DIEBOLD - MAKING MACHINES THAT VOTE SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO.

      Comment by Michael Badnarik -- 11/11/2004 @ 6:23 pm
    • Ohio didn't use computerized voting systems. They decided to use whatever they used last time because their nice new computerized systems didn't have a paper trail.
  • Guess they are helping the democrats out on this one.

  • Not newsworthy? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by shankar2k ( 319273 )
    A quick search of Google News and a couple other websites revealed that this isn't being given all that much importance. It's probably because A.) Kerry doesn't have much of a change of winning in Ohio and B.) The major media outlets don't care about third parties.

    That said, I agree with the many who said this is a worthwhile endeavor to see how well elections proceeded this time around.

  • But I almost have this conciliatory poem down! (Score:5, Funny)

    by artifex2004 ( 766107 ) on Thursday November 11, 2004 @10:07PM (#10794654) Journal
    The election is over, the results are now known.
    The will of the people has clearly been shown.
    We should show by our thoughts, our words and our deeds
    That unity is just what our country needs.
    Let's all get together. Let bitterness pass.
    I'll hug your elephant.
    You kiss my ass.


    From here. [slashdot.org]

  • Non sequiteur... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jonadab ( 583620 ) on Thursday November 11, 2004 @10:13PM (#10794696) Homepage Journal
    > It could even tip the state (and thus the election) from Bush to Kerry.

    Statistically, no, it couldn't. In fantasy fiction, it could, but in real life,
    with Bush leading by over a hundred thousand votes, it ain't gonna happen. For
    Gore in Florida in 2000, trailing by about a thousand votes, the recount was a
    bit of a longshot, although it was not beyond the realm of possibility that it
    could, against the odds, pan out -- but here, the margin is plainly way too
    large. (Kerry knew this, presumably, which is why he conceded.) Do all the
    recounts you want. Recount from now till inauguration day if you like -- but
    don't hold your breath waiting for any big announcements reversing the outcome.
    130 thousand votes is close, yes, but it's not so razor thin that a recount
    has any realistic chance to alter the outcome. The counting process just
    isn't as sloppy as that. (Yes, there are ballots that weren't counted, but
    statistically they aren't going to deviate as wildly as all that from the
    rest. Even if 100% of them are valid and countable, and even if there are
    250 thousand of them outstanding (the highest, most optimistic estimates for
    the Dems; the Blackwell figure of 175 thousand is probably much closer), and,
    indeed, even if Kerry gets a wildly unlikely 70% of those 250 thousand (in
    Ohio, where it is very unlikely for either party to top 60%), Bush would
    still have a comfortable enough margin of victory to be confident of the
    outcome of any recount (at least, any recount observed by representatives
    from both parties).)

    I'm all for the hand recounts. They will verify what we already know.

    (What we do not know is what would have happened if it hadn't rained all day
    statewide. There are always unknowns in life.)

    • Re:Non sequiteur... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by reverius ( 471142 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @01:34AM (#10795645) Homepage Journal
      The purpose of a recount this time around is a bit different than the purpose in 2000. The recount in 2000 was to get around that pesky margin of error, and as such, 1000 votes was feasible (though improbable) and 100,000 votes would have been statistically impossible.

      However, the recount this time is being called for because of potential tampering with voting machines. Such tampering statewide could easily produce the 100,000 vote difference, because although it's outside the margin of error, it's certainly not ouside the margin of (ALL VOTES) which is potentially (mathematically speaking) the number of votes changed.

      It is highly unlikely that 100,000 votes were changed by voting machines, but not as unlikely as you make it sound.

      What IS unlikely, however, is that a hand recount will turn out differently, because the ones changed (if any) would probably be those with no paper trail and no verifiability.

  • Just thought something funny (tinfoil hat on) (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Lisandro ( 799651 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @01:45AM (#10795689)
    Remember the ill-famed John Titor story [johntitor.com]. It said things would get ugly with "civil unrest" after the 2004 US election. Well, what would happen if, by some reason, the recounts come back wildly different - or even declaring Kerry winner of the elections?

    I'm bored, and that site is a fascinating read. It's like watching a trainwreck, you know you're not supposed to enjoy it but just can't look away.

  • Cobb's votes 10k down to 0 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hitchhacker ( 122525 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @04:51AM (#10796271) Homepage

    At a bit less than 40% of the precincts reporting in Ohio, I saw David Cobb's votes go from around 10,000 down to ZERO. After that, I started taking screenshots of the Ohio state departments website.

    you can see a few of them here: http://64.71.168.78/ [64.71.168.78]

    Was Cobb a write-in in Ohio? Maybe that explains it. The ohio state department's website still only shows Cobb with 24 votes [state.oh.us]

    -metric

  • Okay, fine. Let's recount all the close states. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by H0NGK0NGPH00EY ( 210370 ) on Saturday November 13, 2004 @04:19AM (#10805751) Homepage
    Fine. Re-count Ohio. It won't change anything. While we're at it, why don't we recount Pennsylvania, whose vote count was actually closer than Ohio? Or Wisconsin, which was even closer?

    Oh, that's right. We only want to recount states that may cause Kerry to win.

    Is it really every vote that we want counted, or is it just every vote in certain states?

    Ohio [yahoo.com]: Bush by 136,483 votes, 2.5%
    Pennsylvania [yahoo.com]: Kerry by 128,869 votes, 2.3%
    Wisconsin [yahoo.com]: Kerry by 11,813 votes, 0.4%

  • fuck the recount (Score:3, Funny)

    by flyingsquid ( 813711 ) on Saturday November 13, 2004 @05:47AM (#10805922)
    I'm starting an armed resistance movement, supported by a Canadian-based group of fighters called the "Free American Forces", modeled on Chalabi's "Free Iraqi Forces". We'll get the French to fund the whole thing.

    Join me in the hills, democratic brothers! Any freedom fighter who dies in the glorious fight to liberate our country goes straight to Democratic Heaven, where nubile, liberal virgins await!

  • There's a reason Kerry et al aren't pursuing this (Score:4, Interesting)

    by KalvinB ( 205500 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @12:29AM (#10810901) Homepage
    The Internet is abuzz with speculation that there were so many voting irregularities this election that President Bush may not have won after all.

    But the man who headed the Democrats' team of 3,600 attorneys, spread across the country to address irregularities, says, "that ain't the case." Kerry adviser Jack Corrigan, quoted by the Boston Globe, says, "No one would be more interested than me in finding out that we really won ... I get why people are frustrated, but [Republicans] did not steal this election. There were a few problems here and there in the election. But unlike 2000, there is no doubt that they actually got more votes than we did, and they got them in the states that mattered."

    Other Kerry campaign officials agree.
    --------

    You can find that quote in a number of news sources now. That blurb is from FoxNews.com but you can also find it here:

    http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/11/11/news/elec t. html

    He Lost, MoveOn.

    Ben

Slashdot Top Deals

Remember to say hello to your bank teller.

Close