Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

New York Democrats Cite Bush v. Gore -- AFTER CONCEDING!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-02-10 03:24 PM
Original message
New York Democrats Cite Bush v. Gore -- AFTER CONCEDING!
Edited on Thu Dec-02-10 03:45 PM by Bill Bored
If there is still any doubt that paper ballots in New York are nothing more than a bait and switch, read the following article. Without good election law that forces reliance on hand counts of the paper ballots, as well as an air-tight chain of custody of those ballots, our new LEVERLESS computerized elections are a SHAM!

And before you jump down the Republicans' throats, consider that in Nassau County where the future of the New York State Senate will now be decided, the GOP has been saying for some time that we can't trust computers to count votes, as have some -- but not nearly enough -- New York Democrats. See:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/01/26056.htm

In fact, when the Democrats enjoyed two years of one-party rule in the Legislative and Executive branches of the NY State government, they did NOTHING to prepare for the new computerized vote-counting system which the state allowed to be forced on us (with the help of some well-meaning but seriously misguided "verified voting" advocates).

The Democrats' inaction includes NOT writing election laws to require proper HAND COUNTS of the original paper ballots -- not even for close races -- placing our new voting system under the control of proprietary computer software, private vendors, and the courts -- assuming anyone is even willing and financially able to go to court to TRY to have their votes counted.

Rather than write good election laws, what has our party done for us to see to it that every vote is counted as cast?

Well, in NY Senate District 60, after e-vote-counting irregularities in Erie County (Buffalo area) in both the 2009 AND 2010 elections, Democrats have just CONCEDED a very close race for the NY State Senate!

This means the best the Dems can hope for in terms of which party controls the Senate is a TIE. That's right -- they're NOT playing to WIN -- they're playing for a TIE!

I have never been so ashamed to be a Democrat.

For his part, Democratic Governor-elect Andrew Cuomo has simply said to move things along. When he was Attorney General (and still is), he could have defended the state constitution and fought computerized vote-counting in the federal courts. Instead, his office sacrificed our constitutional rights and CONSENTED to the replacement of non-computerized lever voting machines with LEVERLESS computerized ballot scanners, with no election laws on the books to require counting all the paper ballots by hand, even when clearly necessary.

Now the Dems say they want to "count every vote" in another close Senate race, after conceding the first one! :wtf: And, after turning our elections over to the software and the courts, and then CONCEDING in Erie County, they have the GALL to cite Bush v. Gore as a reason why THIS recount should occur!

If New York Democrats don't want the courts to decide elections by forbidding hand counts of paper ballots, then where the F#% were they when it was time to write election auditing and recount laws with TEETH to require the hand counts when necessary? They were in the papers -- touting the "reliability" of the new computerized voting system and the "availability" of the paper ballots, which at this point might as well be used to wrap sturgeon!


Catch of the Day Ready for Wrapping With New York's Paper Ballots

(Did I mention how ashamed I am to be a Democrat?)

Read the latest in the continuing saga of the demise of free and fair elections in the once-great state of New York below:

GOP to Johnson: Do the right thing and give up! (UPDATED)

By Glenn Blain


Senate Republicans are calling on Long Island state Sen. Craig Johnson to follow the example set yesterday by Buffalo Sen. Antoine Thompson and concede his still-contested Senate race.

"More than four weeks after Election Day, Craig Johnson is left with two choices: He can do the right thing and concede this race, as his Democrat colleague in Buffalo did yesterday, or he can continue to tie up state government by arguing for a hand recount of tens of thousands of votes that have already been counted," the GOP said in a statement

According to the Republicans, GOP challenger Jack Martins now leads Craig Johnson by 438 votes

-snip-

A Martins victory would give the Republicans there 32nd seat and, more importantly, a majority in the chamber. Democrats, however, are pushing for a hand recount of all the ballots - a step that could prolong the count for weeks.

-snip-

UPDATED - Senate Democratic spokesman Austin Shafran just issued a response to the GOP:

"The margin in Nassau is less than half of one percent and there are still machine problems and vote count irregularities which call into question the accuracy of the count. The GOP's own top election lawyer raised these issues, and we agree with his skepticism of the veracity of the machine counts. That is why we believe a full manual recount is the only way to ensure a full, fair, and accurate count of every vote. In 2000, the Supreme Court stopped a recount that gave this country George Bush. Actions have consequences, and anything less than the counting of every vote is a slap in the face to every voter."

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2010/12/...

That's very touching, but know what else was a slap in the face to every voter? Legislating into existence a new voting system with crappy Election Laws that ALLOWED and PROMOTED another Bush v. Gore in the first place; CONCEDING a very close race in which only a small number of machines were audited by hand-counting the paper ballots; playing for a TIE instead of a WIN in the New York State Senate; and then having the audacity to bring up Bush v. Gore -- when our election laws are clearly designed to give the Computers and the Judiciary -- but NOT the VOTERS -- the right to decide the outcomes of our elections from now on.
:thumbsdown: :grr: :spank: :puke: :argh:
Refresh | +14 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-02-10 04:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. always important
so much going on, we forget....
peace, kp
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-02-10 08:27 PM
Response to Original message
2. well said and your anger is well earned
shame on you New York Democrats, SHAME ON YOU!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-02-10 08:49 PM
Response to Original message
3. PS
oh, if only someone would blog the OP!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-10 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
4. More bullshit. I wish you guys would find something more productive to...
use all this energy on.

I don't know what happened in Nassau, but here in Suffolk the teabag challenger to Tim Bishop just conceded. We don't know the exact count yet (all absentee ballots haven't been counted) but it's close-- a couple of hundred votes separated the two. What's that, a tenth of a percent?

Throughout all of the nail-biting nobody from either side EVER doubted the machine count. The machine counts were verified by the BOE and both sides looked accepted the counts after looking closely at what the BOE did. Any questions boiled down to challenging affidavit and absenteee ballots, and the teabagger couldn't successfully challenge enough to win.\

The machines we use work. Deal with it-- they're not going away.





Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 04:16 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. The Dem in CD1 said to count every vote -- until he was ahead!
Edited on Thu Dec-09-10 04:18 AM by Bill Bored
And EVERYONE doubts the machine counts -- except you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. I see those who believe in verified election results (rather than jingoisms) have upset you again.
Actually, it's the call for verified election results for which you're serially at odds.

You could have a look at the UCONN report and search DU for the reports on the screwed up election in Potawatomi. Of course, they're among realities at odds with your rhetoric.

Sorry to disappoint.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
brooklynite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-10 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
6. Let's look at some REAL numbers
New York voted for a Governor, Attorney General, State Controller, 2 US Senators, 29 Members of Congress, 60 State Senators, 150 Assembly members, and I have no idea how many local offices. Of those there were, by my count, two House seats and three State Senate seats that were close enough to require manual recounts. If its your allegation that we don't really know how many races were too close to call, you're saying that our candidates were too stupid or cowardly to challenge the machine count. In my view, we lost the old-fashioned way: by having voters throw us out of office because we didn't actually stand for something in the campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. No doubt Democrats could effectively argue their reps don't stand for something.
Edited on Sun Dec-12-10 09:31 PM by Wilms
I agree. Many a vote and voter succumbed to that fact. Perhaps non-democratic calculations by candidates leave them refusing to call for recounts. Weak recount laws and ineffective audit regimes are accomplices. But that's the political reality...subject to endless debate.

What's being discussed here, however, are technical realities which are highly resistant to opinion. You can research that which I stated upthread and correctly determine that what we have in this country are unverified election results. No matter that you vote on the vaunted paper ballot. Lost in the NYVV rhetoric is the fact that computers announce winners and losers.

We can talk all night about politics, but the computerized processing of our Democracy holds certain immutable facts. Chief among them is that computerized election results ARE mutable.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. We don't have manual recounts so how do ya know we've got "real numbers?"
Are you saying you're AGAINST hand counting enough votes to see who won?

Doesn't it bother you that these races are being decided by vote differences that are similar to FL 2000, with perhaps even LESS verification of the results?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Some of the same people who defend optical scan...
...claiming that "the ballots can be recounted manually in case there's "any question", are the same ones who defend the computer readout as sufficient assurance that democracy is still intact. They go as far as to attack those wanting a hand count as a result questions about the computerized tally. Do they even listen to themselves?

I think ALL of them should get jobs selling optical scanners. (Actually, they pretty much do.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. As the differences between the two major parties narrow, interest in election integrity wanes. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Dec 20th 2014, 12:39 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC