For your information: A recount is NEVER a bad thing

[mudesi]

All it does is ensure that votes were counted correctly and accurately.

That's it.

If Hillary won, then Hillary won.

If you're against a recount, you may as well have voted for Bush.

[Evergreen Emerald]

1. Are you accusing Clinton of cheating?

[mudesi]

3. What does that have to do with a recount?

A recount does not expose someone of "cheating".

It simply counts the votes accurately.

Unless you're against that for some reason....

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. NOBODY IS ACCUSING ANYBODY OF CHEATING

This is about a clean PROCESS. Why is this so hard for people to get? This is not about a candidate, but THE PROCESS

Would you rather find out that the process is being subverted NOW, or have a surprising result AGAIN in November?

[aquart]

9. Count them all again. You're the ones who will be embarrassed.

Go for it.

The more trouble those machines are (and challenging every vote is trouble) the more likely they are to be junked. Do it.

(But please don't pretend you would be calling for this if your candidate had won.)

[EFerrari]

12. How can protecting your elections possibly be embarrassing?

Holy cow.

:rofl:

[Bonobo]

13. You will NEVER get it.

[mudesi]

28. This is not some GAME

We're talking about Democracy here. This is not some game where one side tries to embarrass another side.

I'm utterly shocked at some of the things I'm reading on this board lately.

HOW IN THE WORLD CAN ANYONE BE AGAINST COUNTING VOTES TO ENSURE ACCURATE RESULTS?

Apparently partisanship is more important than Democracy to some people.

[RaleighNCDUer]

35. I would be.

Even though my candidate was nowhere near the top two. If there is only a 2% difference I think a recount should be mandatory, regardless of there being or not being any question of fraud.

[Vincardog]

36. My candidate did not win and he is the one requesting a recount. He does not expect to win

The point is to protect the election integrity. Period

[Evergreen Emerald]

20. If it is about a clean process--why aren't you demanding an Iowa

examination of who came to the causus and why there were so many more attendants?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4024634

[EFerrari]

14. You Hillary people need to get a grip.

If this system is corrupt, she cannot win the White House in November.

What about that is so hard to understand?

[JackRiddler]

21. No, I'm accusing the Republicans of doing the Nixonian thing -

and setting up the Democrat likeliest to lose. As actually happened in 1972, when they sabotaged Muskie so they could get McGovern.

You see, not every fixed election was fixed by the winner.

--

Actually, no. I don't believe the above at all, I'm just showing you that this isn't about Clinton or Obama per se.

I don't BELIEVE anything -

except:

Electronic counts are not to be trusted, and if there is anything suggesting a discrepancy, a hand count of the ballots is called for.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

50. Bingo. Exactly my belief, as well -nt

[rucky]

2. Fair enough. n/t

[jlake]

4. No, but claiming fraud because of sour grapes is.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Sour grapes or a clean process?

Why a clean process scares people so much?

By the way... Bush won, get over it... sound familiar?

By the way, you do know people went to jail in OH over the hanky panky at Cuyahooga...

[aquart]

11. Give it up. Have your recount.

But don't give us this "clean process" crap. Please.

[EFerrari]

18. You are so out of your league.

lol

[nashville_brook]

44. word.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. I will... it is the SAME reason the Greens asked for a recount in OH

they had NO CHANCE of winning a thing.

Tell me... why exactly didn't Kerry pursue it?

And do explain to me why people ARE IN JAIL for it?

[EFerrari]

16. That's what the Republicans said in the last two federal elections.

Did you work those campaigns?

[jlake]

37. For Kerry, yes I did. ....the difference is that there was evidence of fraud.

Of course we should have transparent, clean elections.
This is a particular case of people crying foul with NO evidence.

[Wednesdays]

40. Did anyone KNOW there was election fraud the morning after

Election 2000? No. Allegations of election fraud came much later.

[jlake]

41. Well, it was a 30 day ongoing battle....so, yes, by the time Bush was given the victory

anyone paying attention saw it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. Hmm the Greens also screamed foul with no "evidence" just suspicion, as I recall

tell me... what are those folks from Cuyahooga doing in jail then?

Every time we have anybody even suggest that there is a problem with the process and that we need a clean process people get scared?

[EFerrari]

51. Pssssssst: There was only "evidence of fraud" after the same people

who are concerned about this election worked their butts off to find it WHILE being told their claims were invalid.

[HughMoran]

7. "If you're against a recount, you may as well have voted for Bush."

interesting use of rhetoric...

[JackRiddler]

23. If rhetoric is to mean the art of argumentation, then yes, it's well done.

[HughMoran]

30. yep, well done

just the kind of rhetoric that makes this stuff have to be banished from GD. Sarcasm & harsh city down here - yikes!

[mudesi]

27. We know Bush stole both elections

So that's where that came from.

[HughMoran]

31. Yes, he did

...and I'm not against a recount either, but that is just written in a way that rubs me the wrong way for some reason.

[readmoreoften]

8. I agree. I support recounts at all times--and I'm for Edwards. /nt

[mod mom]

10. A recount CAN be bad if...

done improperly (think Blackwell '04) it gives a false impression that nothing occurred if precincts are pre selected. Also if the chain of custody of ballots is not properly maintained a similar event can occur also giving a false sense of integrity where malfeasance has occurred.

I am saying this as a strong advocate for transparency and verifiability but the process must be maintained properly or it gives a false sense of accuracy.

[EFerrari]

15. Except, in that case, people went to jail for thwarting the recount

and Blackwell was unseated. So, imho, it wasn't a bad result. Not ideal but not bad.

I hear what you're saying about appearances, though.

[philly_bob]

45. My worries too. Suppose recount shows scanner count = paper ballot count.

I hope that wouldn't foreclose any later challenges to use of scanners, because, as you point out, there could be preselection of "random" precincts or disruptions to the chain of custody.

Also, many people confuse scanners and DRE's (direct recording electronic) voting machines. If scanners get a clean bill of health, will that be extended to cover DRE's?

But I am happy that we're going to be getting answers to these questions. I look forward to seeing the results of a recount.

[Fresh_Start]

17. Disagree: its like the boy who cried wolf

if every time you don't get the results you want, you request special treatment,
you dilute the entire process until it becomes a joke.

BTW, where is your request for a recount on Iowa?

I mean really if a recount is never bad, why don't check Iowa too?

[EFerrari]

19. In order to rig Iowa, you'd have to KIDNAP a large number of people.

Are there citizens of Iowa that have gone missing?

[Fresh_Start]

22. no, all you have to do is tally incorrectly

you know add the results from all the caucuses

and compare the caucus counts to the people who signed into the caucus......
you know, check the damn facts.

[EFerrari]

29. I doubt the record number of caucus attendees would go for that.

But I have no special knowledge of Iowans.

lol

[mudesi]

24. "Results you want"

There is no such thing as the results I want.

There are only THE RESULTS.

Count them and make sure they are accurate. Why in heavens name are there people here who are against counting votes? Would you accept the same kind of standard in counting your money at an ATM?

[Fresh_Start]

25. again why not recount Iowa?

you're only interested in recounting New Hampshire.

[Cooley Hurd]

32. Did they use Diebold machines in Iowa? No...

...therefore, no recount is needed.

[Fresh_Start]

34. the error that deprived the candidate 31 votes in NH

was a human error not a machine error.

Don't you care about election integrity?

[Vincardog]

38. In Iowa the people stand in a room and publicly pledge their support for their candidate.

There is nothing to recount.
The votes are sent into the SOS and the math publicly posted.
What are you harping about Iowa for?

[Fresh_Start]

39. Recount

verify the number of votes versus the number of people registered and recorded as voting to prevent fraud

If you only had 100 voters signed in, and you had 200 votes, something is wrong...
if your precinct counts go missing in final tally, something is wrong...
its a basis integrity check
The errors in voting are not just machine errors, there are human errors, there can be outright fraud.

[Vincardog]

42. How are you going to recount a show of hands? How many people are in each group?

There is nothing to recount in a caucus.

[Fresh_Start]

46. you mean there are no integrity checks at all

like no one makes sure that the total number is the same as the number of people in the room?
and the stuff magically makes it into a computer and there's never a dropped or transposed number.

[mhatrw]

52. I'm all for an Iowa recount! How can we accomplish this? n/t

[mudesi]

26. And I am NOT against a recount in Iowa. I'm not against recounts ANYWHERE (nm)

[Laelth]

33. Hear, hear! n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[yourout]

43. Highly unlikely anyone in Iowa would/could comit election fraud on....

a grand scale.

With all the video cameras it would be way to easy for someone to get caught comitting felony voting fraud compared to an anomous hacker writing a hidden self deleting piece of code that only a handfull of people have access to and even fewer people would know if they saw it.

[riqster]

49. Recounts are bad if you're afraid your candidate stole it. nt