House Reps ask GAO to investigate 2004 Election

Who Pays For All The Recounts? Answer: TAXPAYERS!

Ahhh hem...

Let's see, the last time I understood what an election was all about, it was about counting the votes and declaring the winner with the most votes. It was NOT about counting the votes, and then demanding a recount when your man (in this case woman) didn't win, and then demanding another recount when you woman still didn't win....It is NOT about counting votes until you get the answer that you, the Democratic Party, want.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/24/wash.governor.race.ap/index.html

Now, I am sure if we have a forth, or fifth recount, and then all of a sudden the Democratic woman leads by 42 votes, the Dems would raise holy hell if the Repubs demanded even ONE recount thereafter!

So we get to a new level of voting. It used to be "whoever got the most votes, wins". Now it becomes "whoever gets the most votes, after the largest number of recounts you can force, wins."

Titor was a Democratic sympathizer, who was pissed about the Bush/Gore result. Why ELSE did Titor appear RIGHT after the election?????

Get a grip people. Titor was no more real than my purported marriage to Kate Beckinsale. A GREAT story (at least one that gets ME excited) but just no way it can be true.

RMT
 
Re: Who Pays For All The Recounts? Answer: TAXPAYERS!

Recounts are no less important than the first count.

I got the impression the JT author hated both Kerry & Bush because of the secret society taking over the government.
 
Nov 20th was the final day the results could've been contested, they can 'look into' it for four years but it won't change who won. I support protection against false voting, people like Boxer and Feinstein have voted against such propositions.

--- Razimus
 
Re: House Reps ask GAO to investigate 2004 Electio

I think that detailed post-mortems of elections is a good idea. It's only by examining such things in detail that any problems that their might be with them can be identified and addressed. This is especially true when new methods of voting have been utilised for the first time.

This won't contest the results of the election that has just gone, but it might ensure that the next one is more efficient and that there is less room for error.
 
Back
Top