Since when is demanding democracy being a sore looser?

[Smith_3]

Everytime the word "recounting votes" surfaces, people start ranting about the person demanding it being a sore looser. So are you saying the people of Russia are sore loosers if they demand that the votes be counted properly? Some people just like things to be done accurately, and rightfully so. If you think Kucinich is a sore looser for wanting votes recounted, then you should also accept that bush won two times and get the hell over it. IMO votes can never be counted too many times. If the winners have nothing to fear, then they should have no problem whatsoever with a recount.

[SeattleGirl]

1. Agreed,

If a recount shows that my candidate still loses, and loses fair and square, I may be disappointed, but I'm not going to be pissed off like I would be if it seemed that the winner, whoever it is, won by shady means.

[Dogmudgeon]

2. Why is this an issue?

If there is concern about electoral misbehavior, the election should be scrutinized.

If this is a matter of "that eeevil Hillary won, she musta done stole the election!", it's going to be difficult to make the case about the Integrity of The Democratic Process, and all that.

Can you imagine the uproar if an ally of Hillary decides to contest a primary result where Barak Obama wins? Will we all still demand to "count all the votes!" ... ?

"Easy" solution: scrutinize the results of EVERY election, EVERY time.

--p!

[Selatius]

3. There should be an automatic hand recount everytime, not when someone asks for one.

The electronic voting results should be audited automatically by hand in full view of the public. It should be mandated in every state of the union.

[SmellsLikeDeanSpirit]

4. The only reason they say that is because thier guy/gal won.

What's so wrong with making sure?

[katmondoo]

5. He just wants to be worshiped

Save for when it is a real issue.

[Enthusiast]

19. Why say things you know are untrue? nt

[Political Heretic]

6. Fully, fully, FULLY support demands for a transparent election process!

Including, full support for DK's call for a recount.

EDIT - even though I personally believe the process was fair and that the results are accurate. I believe Hillary won, and I congratulate her and all her supporters on a great effort.

[Uben]

7. conspiracy theorist

That is essentially what you are claiming if you think there were voting violations. A concerted effort to steal the PRIMARY ELECTION! Gimme a break! There is a cure, however. If a candidate wants a recount, they can pay for one. Last I heard, Obama's campaign has not asked for one.

After the last two general elections, I can see why some may be concerned, but a primary.......in New Hampshire? No way!

To understand the demographics in NH is to realize why the vote went to Clinton. The larger cities in the eastern portion of NH are more conservative than the college towns of the west and south, and have a lot more voters. Frankly, I was surprised Obama did as well as he did in NH. Even if the results were reversed and Obama had won by two percent, they both would still have split the delegates, and we would still move on to the next primaries. To believe there was a concerted effort to rig the machines by a democrat, or to alter the count in a primary is a stretch.....a biiiiggggg stretch! I'm as much for voting transparency as the next, and wish every vote was on a paper ballot, but we are not there yet.

[Smith_3]

8. I was merely criticizing the cry of "sore looser" everytime someone says "recount".

:shrug: I think if someone wants one, there should be one, no questions asked.

[MadHound]

9. Ooo, that other favorite label trotted out when somebody dares to want transparent elections

That's what was heard when Kucinich, and then others, started digging into Ohio. Conspiracy theorist, tin foil, etc. etc. Yet gee, here we were a couple of years later and arrests were made that were the results of that digging. Conspiracy theorist indeed.

Oh, and we're moving further and further away from hand marked/hand counted ballots everyday(and most experts agree, hand marked/hand counted is the best method for insuring voting accuracy). Every chance we have to show that the machines are suspect simply means we're that much closer to going back to the ideal. What's wrong with that?

There's no real reason to be opposed to this, unless you have a vested interest in keeping the current outcome. Recounts happen all the time, Kucinich will be paying for(even though he probably won't benefit from it), and if it does turn out to be a valid count, then all is well.

There is no real reason to oppose this, sorry.

[Uben]

10. Ohio was different

The machines were linked together, and the SOS had vowed to bring in the vote for Bush. A small difference in the count would have made a difference, unlike New Hampshire.

I have no problem with a recount. I am also sure that even if there was a small disparity, the outcome would remain the same, a split of the delegates.

If you look at the differences, you would see that!

[RC]

13. What does linking machines have to do with anything?

It is the secret, proprietary computer code that no one is allowed to see, that tallies the vote that is the problem. Linking is not needed and bringing it up is is a straw man argument.

[Uben]

14. In that case

... you are advocating that there is a democratic conspiracy to change the outcome, right? Why don't you go ahead and say who you think is behind it?

[RC]

16. You really can't be that thick.

Question: Who owns and manufactures and maintains the voting machines? There is your clue in the answer.
It would benefit the republicans it they could influence or even pick the democrat in the primary that they would be running against in the General election.

[Uben]

17. Watch your insults

If the code was changed, then the paper would reflect the same results and a recount would be useless.

Get it?

[RC]

20. Not necessarily.

There is no reason the paper slip has to reflect what was entered on the screen.

[Kip Humphrey]

21. The paper in NH are full ballots that are scanned. Keep in mind, Rove & the RNC started promoting

Hillary as the candidate to beat on November 3rd 2004. They've used Hillary to stir their base ever since then. For whatever reasons, I think its clear they have wanted Hillary to run against in the general election all along.

Sunday, Rove defended Hillary in an editorial while blasting Obama. In my opinion, Rove gave Hillary an unseen gift of NH for Rove's own agenda. I don't think Rove handed the keys to the kingdom to Hillary. I don't think Hillary knew or knows. Like an egotistical arsonist, I further think that Rove just couldn't stay away from his crime - hence, his editorial.

Hand counting the machine counted ballots in NH would serve to either confirm Hillary's win or demonstrate the dangers of electronic voting whether via DREs or Optical scanners.

[MadHound]

22. And the opti-scans, with their removable memories, are nearly as vunerable to tampering

As the touch screens.

And frankly, we don't know if the disparity is large or small. It could be enough to swing a delegate or two, who knows. That's why we need a recount.

Recounts occur all the time, there were at least five done in the '06 election. They are not motivated by some sort of crackpot conspiracy theorist, they are motivated by people who want every vote to be counted, and counted properly. I don't know why there are people who insist that this is a wrong move, advocating for transparent, honest elections is the right thing to do, and once again Dennis is doing the right thing.

[iamthebandfanman]

11. 2000?

if ur a republican ;)

[RebelOne]

12. I just have to post this. It's "sore loser," not "sore looser."

[mwb970]

15. It's also "every time", not "everytime".

At least we know "looser" wasn't a typo, since the OP spelled it that way 4 times. And the post has been edited without fixing the errors!

Obviously, a message is separate from the way it is expressed, and maybe I'm an elitist or a grammar Nazi or something, but when I see "sore looser" my first thought is "this person can't spell a simple word in their own first language". I know it shouldn't, but for me it takes away from the message itself to contain 4th-grade type mistakes like this one.

[BoneDaddy]

18. It is loser, not looser

Sorry, I am usually forgiving with typos but this was driving me crazy reading it multiple times. But I tend to agree with you. Given the history of fraud, EVERY election needs to be reviewed, scrutinized and questioned until no doubt remains.