Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (116720)	5/28/2005 7:47:59 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793843

Wonder if whoever wrote that question realized it was a communistic type question....? It's not a "communistic type question." It's a totalitarian question and directly addresses the authoritarian/libertarian axis. Communists are left totalitarians but there are right totalitarians, too. Whenever those of one POV wants to ignore other POVs, they wax nostalgic about how easy it would be to do things their way if they didn't have to bother taking into consideration those who think otherwise. The same can be seen on a personal level with anyone who is a control freak or has absolute values or just likes having everything his own way. Those behaviors can be found in any authoritarian power structure or any authoritarian personality. The notion being addressed by this question can be found within democratic systems, for example, the event we all just witnessed in the Senate. It's a control thing. That's what the question was going for, a bit ham-handledly, however.

To: KLP who wrote (116720)	5/28/2005 11:37:43 AM
From: Neeka	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793843

Found in my Inbox this morning. We've won round 1.... M Earlier today, Chelan County Superior Court Judge John Bridges denied a motion by the Democrats to dismiss the Republicans’ election contest. The ruling was yet another defeat for the Democrats, who have attempted to suppress evidence and witnesses throughout the week. Republican lawyers presented the following arguments against the motion to dismiss: - Evidence shows that 789 felons, dead people, and double-voters illegally voted in the 2004 election. People who cast ballots in the names of dead people, or convicted felons who voted without their rights restored, and those who voted more than once, did so illegally. - King County cannot reconcile its voting records. 1,156 more ballots were counted by Accuvote machines at polling places throughout the county than can be attached to any voters. - 875 more absentee ballots were counted in King County than voters documented as having voted. In addition, King County Absentee Ballot Supervisor Nicole Way acknowledged that the County did not know how many absentee ballots were returned and that the system could not keep track of ballots. - King County could not provide an audit trail of the number of ballots printed, issued, or returned. The absentee ballot report, which included numbers that the people who composed it knew were not accurate, was submitted to the canvassing board without the board's knowledge. - Because of the major discrepancies and errors which are well outside the margin of 129 vote victory; no one knows who received the most votes in the governor’s election. - This case has similar circumstances to those of Foulkes v Hayes. They share the same construction, in that if neglect of elections officials renders it impossible to know who received the most legal votes, then the election must be set aside. The same conditions can be seen in this case: neglect and error by elections officials produced 785 unverified provisional ballots, a surplus of 875 absentee ballots, 96 uncounted absentee ballots, and hundreds more improperly counted poll ballots. - The “proportional deduction” method that was presented in court and was approved by two noted professors, has been used by U.S. Congress and jurisdictions around the country to determine the outcome of other close elections. Applying this method, Dino Rossi wins. - The Democrats’ contention that the names of people who voted illegally needs to be known is a "tortured reading of contest statute", inconsistent with the Foulkes case. Under the Democrats interpretation of the law, it would be impossible to contest an election based on the stuffing of ballot boxes, because it would be impossible to attach names to the illegally added ballots. - If the court had dismissed this case, with such knowledge of overwhelming error and neglect, the State of Washington would no longer have had a meaningful election contest statue.