Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Democrats Government Republicans Politics

Democrat Certified Winner in WA Governor Race 220

Posted by pudge from the the-beginning-of-the-end dept.
Washington's secretary of state certified the result of the hand recount (the third count) in the governor's race, reversing the first two results -- which Republican Dino Rossi had won -- and making Democrat Christine Gregoire the election's second governor-elect, by 129 votes out of 2.9 million. The inauguration is January 12. Predictably, the two sides have switched arguments, too, with the Democrats saying Rossi should concede and the Republicans saying they have a duty to make sure the will of the people is followed. The next step may be an election contest, which could take months, and result in a court awarding the victory to a candidate, nullifying the entire election, or sending the matter to the legislature. Rossi is calling for the legislature to pass a special law calling for a new election, which would bypass a contest procedure.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Democrat Certified Winner in WA Governor Race More

Democrat Certified Winner in WA Governor Race

Comments Filter:
  • ... I'm happy with the result. It's legal and consistent with the incredibly close nature of the race - the general crapiness of both candidates. Even if you get mad about the extra votes in King Co. that were included, Gregoire would have won. If Rossi just keeps his mouth shut and behaves as a gracious winner, he will be quite a force to reckon with in 2006 against Sen. Cantwell or 2008 against Gregoire's re-election. I don't have a very high opinion of him though, so I doubt it.
    • I thought this was for governor, not a representative...
      • I thought this was for governor, not a representative

        Word on the street is that Rossi could make a run for Maria Cantwell's seat in congress come 2006. He could likely win considering he got 1.5 million votes out of 3 million votes.

        Of course, he could likely lose considering Cantwell is considered a good congresswoman while Gregoire is considered incompetent.
        • She is not a congresswoman, she is a senator.
          • To be fair, Congress includes both the House of Representatives and the Senate. It is true though that most folks running for the House call themselves "congressmen," probably to avoid the stigma of running for the lower house.

            (Or perhaps as part of a grand conspiracy to further confuse the masses as to the mechanics of their own government... where's my tin foil?!)

      • From the grand parent:
        If Rossi just keeps his mouth shut and behaves as a gracious winner, he will be quite a force to reckon with in 2006 against Sen. Cantwell or 2008 against Gregoire's re-election.
        The grand poster mentions that Rossi could be a gracious loser and still have a good chance at a Senate seat in 2006 or for Governor in 2008. The GP makes no mention whatsoever of the House of Representatives.

    • Gracious Winner (Score:5, Insightful)

      by macz ( 797860 ) on Friday December 31, 2004 @05:10PM (#11230479)
      I think it is important to humanity as a whole, and civilization in particular that "gracious winner" become the gold standard for closely contested elections.

      As a Republican I root for the elephant's, but I am not about to go turning over flaming cars and seceding from the union if a Democrat gets in office.

      What ever happened to "reasoned" debate? A legitimate difference of opinion? At the risk of sounding like we should all just get along, there is merit to the idea that if we, the left and the right, are working for the betterment of the people... then no one loses.

      Of course, as long as government suckles at the teat of corrupt corporate influence peddlers, as well as letting the dog get wagged by the tail of the marginally disenfranchised then we will have partisan bickering that lowers us all.

      Whoa, better step down from this soap box... it gives me such a head rush...

      • Reasoned debate doesn't motivate the masses. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by khasim ( 1285 ) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Saturday January 01, 2005 @12:37AM (#11232285)
        I think it is important to humanity as a whole, and civilization in particular that "gracious winner" become the gold standard for closely contested elections.
        I'd like to see that also. But I think there will be a problem with the average person.
        What ever happened to "reasoned" debate?
        The political parties found that it was easier to motivate people with antagonistic attacks and sound bites. Sad, but true.
        A legitimate difference of opinion?
        Again, the political parties found that such does not get enough voters out to vote.

        The way to motivate people is to make them believe that THEY are under attack from the "enemy". Or that they are in danger from the "enemy". Or their families, values, etc.
        At the risk of sounding like we should all just get along, there is merit to the idea that if we, the left and the right, are working for the betterment of the people... then no one loses.
        But the politicians aren't out for the betterment of the people. They are out to get power and to keep power.
        Of course, as long as government suckles at the teat of corrupt corporate influence peddlers, as well as letting the dog get wagged by the tail of the marginally disenfranchised then we will have partisan bickering that lowers us all.
        There is that, also.

        Although I'd look at it differently. I see it as people fighting to get the power so they are the ones getting the corporate attentions.

        Politics is now about getting power and holding power. The easiest way to do that is fear and hate. The worst way is through rational discussion and mutual respect.
        • "Although I'd look at it differently. I see it as people fighting to get the power so they are the ones getting the corporate attentions."

          You'd be wrong and the grandparent would be right. If all excercises of power by a politician then it's the one who bought the politician who has the power, not the politician. Politicians are merely corporate whores, the corps make them, buy them, and own them. Sometimes they even trade them.

    • Re:As a Democrat... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by pudge ( 3605 ) *
      If Rossi just keeps his mouth shut and behaves as a gracious winner...

      Right, because it is good for your Democrat to follow the legal process to challenge the election result when she lost, but not good for the Republican to do it when he lost.

      The hypocrisy of the Democrats here would be stunning if it weren't so predictable.

      • Re:As a Democrat... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Gaetano ( 142855 ) * on Friday December 31, 2004 @05:47PM (#11230688)
        "The hypocrisy of the Democrats here would be stunning if it weren't so predictable."

        As a Republican I think saying that is hypocritical of you sir. :)
        • Pardon? I am the one who wrote the story, which says both sides predictably switched arguments. That I didn't repeat that in the comment you're replying to doesn't negate it.

          • Re:As a Democrat... (Score:2, Interesting)

            by Gaetano ( 142855 ) *
            See, its called irony. When you stoop to simple insults one would say your reaction is stunning if it wasn't so predictable, which considering the particular insult, also makes your reaction hypocritical. But this may also make the person to respond to you hypocritical if it was said in an insulting way.
      • Dino Rossi has no more legal process. He has lost. Any voter can now challenge the election - I guess that would include Rossi, I suppose - and see where that takes him. Rossi is asking for a recount - something not provided for in the legal process. Gregoire asked for what she's entitled to under state law and won, Rossi's asking for a whole new law - a new election! - so that he can have another chance. The arrogance of the republicans is stunning, no matter how often I see it.

        • Re:As a Democrat... (Score:3, Informative)

          by Pacifix ( 465793 )
          Re-vote. Not recount. "Rossing is asking for a re-vote" ... Sorry.

        • Re:As a Democrat... (Score:2, Insightful)

          by pudge ( 3605 ) *
          Dino Rossi has no more legal process.

          He has two options, both outlined in the story: asking the legislature to step in, and contesting the election.

          Rossi is asking for a recount - something not provided for in the legal process.

          Yes, it is. The legislature making laws is very clearly provided for in the law.

          He has lost.

          And Gregoire had lost before yesterday. So what?

          Gregoire asked for what she's entitled to under state law and won, Rossi's asking for a whole new law

          Something he is entitled to
          • It must be very lonely up there on high... We had an election under the laws as they stand. We followed the law and ended up with a result. If you don't like the law, sure you can ask to change it, but for the next election. We're playing by the rules the legislature gave us for this particular go-around and Gregoire is the winner under those rules. On what grounds could the leg possibly step in or Rossi contest the election? Not even Rossi has come up with any. Beyond a few conspiracy theories - the

            • Re:As a Democrat... (Score:4, Interesting)

              by pudge ( 3605 ) * <<slashdot> <at> <pudge.net>> on Friday December 31, 2004 @06:34PM (#11230909) Homepage Journal
              We had an election under the laws as they stand. We followed the law and ended up with a result.

              Yes, and the law is still being followed. This is where your political bias is providing for you a significant mental block. The rules, the law, is still being followed.

              On what grounds could the leg possibly step in or Rossi contest the election?

              I can't speak to the legislature stepping in, but rest assured, if it happened, it would be on reasonable legal grounds.

              As to the contest: that is perfectly obvious. Hell, we've seen more than 129 examples of military people who didn't get their absentee ballots in time, and there are other forms of problems too, such as the counties who did not re-consider ballots with signature problems as King County did, which means their votes were not treated equally.

              Legally he might contest or beg for a mulligan to be granted, but pragmatically you have to agree he should use this loss as a jumping off point for his next campaign.

              If he had not won the first count and first recount, I would agree. But as he did, no, I don't agree at all with this. In every poll I've seen, the majority of people said Gregoire should concede, by a good margin, and even now, a significant number are saying they don't see Gregoire as legitimate (might even be a majority).
              • I can't speak to the legislature stepping in, but rest assured, if it happened, it would be on reasonable legal grounds.

                Hopefully, yes. However, this seems a circular argument: you can't think of compelling grounds why the legislature should step in, but if they do, they must have a good reason.

                In every poll I've seen, the majority of people said Gregoire should concede, by a good margin, and even now, a significant number are saying they don't see Gregoire as legitimate (might even be a majority).

                I
                • you can't think of compelling grounds why the legislature should step in, but if they do, they must have a good reason.

                  No, there's nothing circular about it. You're misunderstanding, perhaps. I am saying that at this stage I can see no justification for it, and predicting that they won't do it unless such justification is presented.

                  I think it might very well be that people said that Gregoire should concedede because they were sick of the whole thing.

                  It's largely because they have no faith that a sec

              • Re:As a Democrat... (Score:3, Insightful)

                by Scudsucker ( 17617 )
                Yes, and the law is still being followed. This is where your political bias is providing for you a significant mental block. The rules, the law, is still being followed.

                Mental blocks? What about your mental block? As if following existing laws to their conclusion is remotely similar to passing NEW laws for your convenience. You are fighting windmills here, Pudge.
                • As if following existing laws to their conclusion is remotely similar to passing NEW laws for your convenience

                  Since the law provides for the legislature having the ability to fix the problem of a broken election by nullifying it, yes, it is very similar. It's a much more drastic step, one that should not be taken lightly, and one I am not currently in favor of taking, but the Democrats were saying all along that we should follow the legal process to its conclusion and no one should concede. Well, then t
            • We had an election under the laws as they stand. We followed the law and ended up with a result.

              Therein lies the crux of the matter. Was the election actually within the law? And even moreso can a legal challenge prove the election to be enough out of spec to the satisfaction of a state judge, and on up the legal chain? I personally doubt that the election result will be overturned. Judge really don't like overturing elections, and it really has to be very cut and dry for a judge to go out on a limb
          • Rossi is asking for a recount - something not provided for in the legal process.
            Yes, it is. The legislature making laws is very clearly provided for in the law.
            But not ex post facto laws. Those are very clearly denied to the legislature.
            • As I noted in another comment, this is conflation. Such a law as being requested would not be a change in how this election was held, but a law that found this election was not properly conducted, nullifying the whole thing.

              It's a different kind of thing (and, incidentally, a far more dangerous thing), and while I am no expert in WA state law, I can find nothing that forbids this to the legislature. Indeed, there is a long legal tradition predating this nation whereby a legislature can rule on whether or
              • US Constitution: Article I, Section 9, Clause 3: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

                In the letter of the Constitution this only applies to Congress, but the Supreme Court has continually ruled that restrictions placed on Congress in the Constitution also apply to the Executive Branch and to State governments.
                • And for the third time, this is not an ex post facto law.

                  You can disagree with me on that point, but merely restating your assertion that it is doesn't interest me.

      • Re:As a Democrat... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Noksagt ( 69097 )
        I don't think the Democrats have a monopoly on hypocrisy. Republicans asked Gregoire to shutup and conceed when she was 42 votes down & still had recourse in the law as it exists now. Now they aren't exactly practicing what they preach & are even asking for new law to be made to handle an election that has already happened.

      • Re:As a Democrat... (Score:2, Informative)

        by XopherMV ( 575514 ) *
        The hypocrisy of the Democrats here would be stunning if it weren't so predictable.

        The democrats followed the election through the legal steps of the initial count, a machine recount, and then a hand recount.

        Rossi was the winner of the first count by 261 votes. After that, the Republicans started asking Gregoire to concede.

        Then, Rossi won the machine recount by 42 votes. After that, the Republicans started demanding Gregoire to concede.

        Then, Gregoire won the hand recount by 129 votes. Aft

      • Re:As a Democrat... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by stinerman ( 812158 ) on Friday December 31, 2004 @10:57PM (#11232004)
        The hypocrisy of the Democrats here would be stunning if it weren't so predictable.

        Hehe those of us outside the two party system see it for what it really is.

        The Democrats and Republicans are simply trying to make sure their person wins. Does it matter if they actually won? Hell No!!! If we've seen anything there is no such thing as morality in politics. The ends always justify the means.

        Its okay if we stuff the ballot with our candidate because the other side is probably doing it too, and even then, their candidate is just good at making people believe his lies, so we're actually doing the public a favor by cheating.

        I KNOW people who would agree that cheating is morally acceptable for those reasons. Its sickening.

    • Re:As a Democrat... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      New Theme, Count till you win. If that is not enough, a magical box of ballets will apear and then count till you win. If that is not enough, repeat previous....
      Oh, but this is a troll.
      But this is the what happened...
      Sad...
  • ...they should have to pick two new candidates. Clearly neither of these two have sufficient support. Why bother running another deadlocked election?
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Call me cynical (because I am), but I'd somehow expect that any two other canidates would wind up with similar results - because people aren't voting for the canidate as much as they are the party.

      • Normally I'd say you're right, but not in Washington State. The Republicans here have a bad habit of picking really, really lousy gubernatorial candidates who get their butts whipped. One reason I expected the dems not to do well this election was that we've held the governorship for 20 years and were very sucetible to "kick the incumbent out" syndrome. Plus, Dino Rossi happens to be a very middle-of-the-road candidate.
      • The Democrats won the Presidential and Senatorial votes by wide margins. Obviously, it's not merely party difference that makes the difference.

  • a pox on both houses (Score:4, Insightful)

    by elmegil ( 12001 ) on Friday December 31, 2004 @04:49PM (#11230358) Homepage Journal
    Predictably, the two sides have switched arguments, too, with the Democrats saying Rossi should concede and the Republicans saying they have a duty to make sure the will of the people is followed.

    Which makes it clear that neither side cares about the will of the people, as long as they win.

  • From SoundPolitics.com [soundpolitics.com]

    Been spending more time analyzing the newly posted precinct canvass of the King County manual recount, and the differences with the canvass of the machine recount.

    The story seems to be that at every opportunity where new ballots were somehow introduced into the mix, Gregoire benefited disproportionately.

    As mentioned in an earlier post, 266 ballots seemed to disappear, while 325 magically materialized. Again, these are not just a matter of reinterpration of marks on paper, thes
    • That's an interesting website. Unfortunately, while it presents itself as independent blog, digging deeper reveals a strong Republican bias. Really, is it that suprising to have the loony right come out and accuse the Democrats of vote fraud when the Republican candidate loses? The same cries of vote fraud came from the far left after Kerry lost; the claims turned out to be groundless (full disclosure: I voted Kerry).

      If the allegations of that site are true, however, and the Democrats did commit some sor

      • If the allegations of that site are true, however, and the Democrats did commit some sort of subtle, large-scale conspiracy across the state (without any whistleblowers going to the media)

        As I read it - all the problems were in King County. The rest of the state has it's ups and downs, but nothing too odd. King County is either a case of vote fraud OR massive incompetence and either way, some people should be spending time behind bars or should be fired.

        Soundpolitics.com is certainly from the right - bu

    • Re:VOTE FRAUD! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by XopherMV ( 575514 ) * on Friday December 31, 2004 @05:38PM (#11230635) Journal
      As mentioned in an earlier post, 266 ballots seemed to disappear, while 325 magically materialized. Again, these are not just a matter of reinterpration of marks on paper, these are entire sheets of paper that either vanished or appeared out of thin air. Christine Gregoire added a net 47 new votes to her total, Dino Rossi lost a net 12 from his.

      In the first count, Rossi was ahead by 261 votes. In the second count, Rossi ended up ahead by 42 votes. In the final count, Gregoire was ahead by 129 votes. The total number of votes cast were 2.8 million. Anyone see a problem here?

      The problem is that we're well within the margin of error. To get an accurate count, we need to be more precise than 0.01%. The fact that a few votes here and there seemed to disappear and reappear are just statistical anomalies. That alone is not proof of fraud.
      • In the first count, Rossi was ahead by 261 votes. In the second count, Rossi ended up ahead by 42 votes. In the final count, Gregoire was ahead by 129 votes. The total number of votes cast were 2.8 million. Anyone see a problem here?

        The problem is that the system doesn't work properly. If Libertarian candidate Ruth Bennett got exactly 63,416 votes [cnn.com], then there had damn well better be exactly 63,416 people who voted for her. Just the same as if George W. Bush got exactly 19,007 votes in DC. There had bet
        • In other words, it doesn't matter if the election results are not changed, we need to know EXACTLY how many people voted for each candidate.

          Well, if you can design a electronic voting system that doesn't involve any humans to muck up the counting while still being fair and open, then go ahead.

          Basically, this system must do the same work as a human, for about the same price, and do it fair, honestly, and openly. It must work for people visiting the polling place as well as those who mail in absentee
  • Some people are sick of hearing about this on t.v., and won't want a run-off vote.

    If we were to have a run-off vote, it's like saying that the first election was botched, that we messed up and didn't fix it. That when we went out to vote, our vote didn't count, cause now we have to re-vote.

    If we were to have something like Instant Runoff Voting, would it make a different when the other 2.2585% votes get transferred to the remaining candidates? Would the margin between the top two be big enough to have a c
    • Anyone have any ideas on solutions to make sure this doesn't happen again?

      In this election, the vote was open to governor candidates from multiple parties. Write in candidates were also allowed. This made for a good number of votes that weren't even placed for the top two candidates.

      The solution to this problem was enacted into Washington state law in this election. I-872 [wa.gov] will allow voters to select among all candidates in a primary. Ballots would indicate candidates' party preference. The two ca
      • Too bad for you that I-872 is unconstitutional. A blanket primary was already ruled unconstitutional in CA by the Supreme Court, and the ruling was upheld in WA by a federal circuit court (which is why we got rid of it in the first place).

        As soon as the governor's thing is finished, I hope the parties set their sights on this despicable law that steals choice and power away from the people. Most people -- like you -- had no idea what I-872 said when they voted for it.

        Beyond that, it is incredible to me
        • Too bad for you that I-872 is unconstitutional. A blanket primary was already ruled unconstitutional in CA by the Supreme Court, and the ruling was upheld in WA by a federal circuit court (which is why we got rid of it in the first place).

          Although the US Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit have ruled that this form of primary is different from the partisan blanket primary previously in use in Washington state and that nonpartisan blanket primaries are not subject to the kind of legal challenge presentl
          • Primary voters are not choosing a party's nominee.

            When you're quoting someone else verbatim, you should reference it. Plagiarism is bad. Maybe you didn't do so because if people knew you were quoting The Grange, they would be less likely to believe it? And well they should. This was one possible proposition by the court, and not an idea under strict scrutiny, and once under scrutiny, would fall for exactly the same reasons as the others.

            I knew exactly what I was voting for when I voted for this.

            No
            • Maybe you didn't do so because if people knew you were quoting The Grange, they would be less likely to believe it? And well they should.

              Yes, I quoted the Grange, who was quoting the Supreme Court. Why don't you comment on the merits of the statement itself instead of where it came from?

              I-872 was modeled on the statements of the Supreme Court that they themselves said would be legal. In other words, you can't comment on the merits of the argument because you would lose.

              You think it will help
              • Why don't you comment on the merits of the statement itself instead of where it came from?

                Why do you ask why I didn't comment on the merits of the statement itself, when I clearly did so?

                I-872 was modeled on the statements of the Supreme Court that they themselves said would be legal.

                The SCOTUS did NOT say that it would be legal. Now you're just making things up. It was a vague discussion of a general system, and did not declare anything in particular legal.

                Where's your proof? How will this hurt t
                • Do you agree with this idea?

                  Hold one election.
                  Use Instant Runoff Voting.
                  It is being suggested that each (major?) political party nominate a candidate of their choice, and on the ballot, it would receive an "*" by it.
                  There would be multiple people from each major political party.

                  Example...
                  Candidate 1 Democrat
                  Candidate 2 Democrat *
                  Candidate 3 Democrat
                  Candidate 4 Democrat
                  Candidate 1 Republican *
                  Candidate 2 Republican
                  Candidate 1 Libertarian
                  Candidate 2 Libertarian *
                  Candidate 1 Green
                  Candidate 1 Consti
      • The problem with a top two primary is that although we get to vote on the person, not the party, each party has a right to be represented in the general election.

        And if by some weird happening, two Democrats or two Republicans went onto the general election for a given race, I'm a bit curious about campaign money and issues like that.

        Also, for the primary, what prevents vote splitting? Hypothetically speaking, let's say 15 Democrats run for a given race. If we use the plurality system, they may as well ha
        • The problem with a top two primary is that although we get to vote on the person, not the party, each party has a right to be represented in the general election.

          Why is this a problem? Isn't voting for the person what we should be doing in the first place?

          And if by some weird happening, two Democrats or two Republicans went onto the general election for a given race, I'm a bit curious about campaign money and issues like that.

          The campaign money will flow to the candidate with the broadest appea
          • Why is this a problem? Isn't voting for the person what we should be doing in the first place?

            The whole point is who gets to determine who is on the general election ballot.

            A party is a group of people of similar interests who get together and sign their names in numbers enough to get a candidate they decide on to be in the general election. That is the main purpose of a party.

            It's the right of the people to form groups to do this, to get candidates in the election. A party is a formalized way to acco
    • If we were to have a run-off vote, it's like saying that the first election was botched, that we messed up and didn't fix it.

      You cannot fix a significantly flawed election. You can only fix it for next time, and you can fix the results by holding a new election.

      That when we went out to vote, our vote didn't count, cause now we have to re-vote.

      Yes, it is a serious step, and one that should not be undertaken lightly.

      If we have a re-vote, who should pay for it? Should we really make the taxpayers pay
      • Oops, out of control bold!
      • I agree. An earlier primary. Sending out absentee ballots earlier. Perhaps requiring a postmark date on ballots one week earlier, except for those in the military (as things may come up.)

        New idea: Blank absentee ballots. Military people would receive blank absentee ballots, without the candidates written on them. Then there's be a bubble thing (like standardized testing uses) to fill in the name of the candidates. That way, they could receive the blank ballot months in advance, and fill it out when they kn
        • I am all in favor of making voting easier to tabulate and cheaper to run, and if Internet voting can do that, great. However, we are nowhere near where we need to be in terms of making it reliable and secure. Someday, maybe. Don't hold your breath.
      • Hand recounts are not accurate.

        The hand recount differed from the initial machine count by around 0.015% (and less for the second machine count). How's that not accurate?
  • 3,500 more votes than voters in King County. [nwsource.com]

    And it happens to be an overwhelming Democrat County.

    Interesting.

    Thursday, December 30, 2004 Last updated 5:30 p.m. PT

    GOP urges King County to explain 3,500-vote discrepancy

    By ELIZABETH M. GILLESPIE
    ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

    SEATTLE -- The day after King County released a list of nearly 900,000 voters who cast ballots Nov. 2, Republicans prodded election officials to explain why the list appeared to have about 3,500 fewer names than the number of votes that we
    • And it happens to be an overwhelming Democrat County. Interesting.

      There is nothing particularly interesting or surprising about this. The fact of the matter is that if Rossi still wants to stay in the race, then he needs to make a compelling argument that will convince either the judiciary or the legislature that fraud occured. And he's hired 500 lawyers to help make his case.

      Republicans and Democrats have both monitored the elections, sniffing out any sign of fraud. None has materialized thus f
      • Republicans and Democrats have both monitored the elections, sniffing out any sign of fraud. None has materialized thus far.

        Republicans sniffed and found 3,500 more votes than voters in an overwhelmingly Democrat county.

        That's a compelling argument that there was fraud.

        • Let's be clear: it is 3,500 more votes than voters on an incomplete and preliminary list. That's not (yet) interesting, though it does require the county to finish the job with a more complete list. It is not in the least bit a compelling argument for fraud. It's not an argument for anything at all.

  • To paraphrase every Republican for the last four years:

    She WON get over it!!
  • Sound Politics [soundpolitics.com] is the place to go if you want to learn more about the election.
  • The next step may be an election contest, which could take months

    Why should it take months? Isn't it just battle clubs and a cage? Or maybe I mean, shouldn't it be?

  • banana republic (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jilles ( 20976 ) on Saturday January 01, 2005 @08:16AM (#11233202) Homepage
    The only democratic outcome of the 2004 election is to organize new elections. If the Ukraine can do it, the US should be able to do the democratically right thing too. Of course the legal context and its current implementation is deeply flawed so that needs to be fixed as well. Three recounts and three different outcomes is unacceptable. Obviously sombody has trouble counting or someone is manipulating rather than counting the results.

    It's unbelievable that two times in a row, the US gets a president whose election victory is all but certain. I'm not saying Bush didn't win. I'm just saying that it is pretty hard too establish that he won (and with how many votes) given the many legitimate (amd not so legitimate complaints) about the voting procedure, the way of counting votes, etc.

    IMHO Bush should fix democracy in his own country before spreading it to the rest of the world.

Slashdot Top Deals

To be awake is to be alive. -- Henry David Thoreau, in "Walden"

Close