Monday, January 05, 2009

How Many Recounts Does It Take?

How many recounts were we going to suffer through in Florida in 2000 before the US and Florida Supreme Courts put an end to them, halting Democrat Al Gore's efforts to steal the election?

How many recounts did it take before Democrat Christine Gregoire was (finally) declared the winner in the Washington governor's race in 2004? (ans: 2)

How many recounts will it take before Democrat Al Franken is declared the winner of Minnesota's senate seat?

Can anyone show me an example of recounts that keep occurring until a Republican wins?


Donalbain said...

However, Coleman's campaign, which contends the recount should have included about 650 absentee ballots it says were improperly rejected in the initial count, has indicated it will challenge the certification.

Yeah.. those pesky Democrats, always challenging in the courts..

What? You mean it isnt a Democrat? It is the Republican who is not happy with the result and demands another go?

Darren said...

I point out that Democrats always like to recount until they win.

Donalbain said...

This is not a matter of ANYONE wanting the recount. Minnesota law DEMANDS a recount when the vote is that close. It is now COLEMAN who wants to keep on counting, not Franken.

Darren said...

You're being intentionally obtuse.

I'm curious why recounts always seem to benefit Democrats, at least in the *major* examples I mentioned. You might find an election for Dogcatcher or something where a Republican won in a recount, but I'm talking major elections.

Curmudgeon said...

Um, not to disagree with the prevailing wind, but the Bush vs Gore in Florida recounts did indeed continue until Bush won. After he was declared the winner, there were no more recounts.

How you lean usually depends on where you stand:
(a) The FlSC halted Gore's efforts to steal the election.
(b) Bush's cronies halted Gore's legitimate attempt to block the theft of the election.

Vast blocks of votes are found, favoring the Democrat.

(1) The democratic candidate is bad and is "finding" votes that don't really exist or is seeing undervotes where the voter never intended to vote for senator (only for president) or is printing extra copies of the ballout and filling them out.
(2) the democratic candidate is good and is discovering votes that the bad republican party tried to conceal or were "lost" or the bad Republican vote counter ignored.

Just sayin'.

IN this case, Minnesota is just helping me laugh.

Ellen K said...

What else can you expect from a state that elects a former professional wrestler as governor? They obviously need some entertainment and decided to get it from their politicians. Franken wasn't even all that amusing as a comedian-I could always spot the lame skits he wrote for SNL. I expect he will wear out his welcome quickly because he has this idea that being a junior senator from a small, homogeneous northern state is going to matter to people. It won't.

Donalbain said...

Goodness. Two examples. Well that settles it. Well done.

Darren said...

And yet not a single example going the other way, just snark. Back under your bridge.

Donalbain said...

Fair enough. You are resorting to the name calling again. Have fun.

neko said...

If I am not mistaken, on 11/5/08 the Democrats were only three seats shy of the 60 seat super majority they needed to stop any fillibuster. Somehow, in the last two months, three of the elections in which Republicans won were overturned, disputed or changed so that a Democrat got those seats. Does this seem suspicious to anyone else?

neko said...

Curmudgeon, the recounts did continue after the courts decided that Bush was the winner of the 2000 election. The recounts still found that Bush won the election:

pseudotsuga said...

That contested Washington State governor's race (Gregoire-D vs. Rossi-R) was darkly amusing. Rossi won recounts at least twice that I remember, but the elections folks kept finding new votes that had to be counted. Once "their" candidate won, the counting and recounting and mysterious appearance of votes all stopped.
A judge in a "neutral" county ruled on the case, and he shrugged his shoulders and said since nobody could prove election fraud, there wasn't any, and the vote should stand.
As for these types of multiple, last minute, extra voters, I am sure that in the past there has been Republican cheating somewhere. That does not, of course, mean that these tactics are acceptable for Democrats to use.

Donalbain said...

Gosh! A judge saying that since you cant prove a crime, nobody should be punished for a crime.
For god's sake, that is the exact point of laws. You require evidence to prove the claim. The fact is that there was no evidence of fraud.