|
What's going on down there??
While flippin' channels yesterday, I breezed through CNN.
There was some king of panel with Wolfe Blitzer, that tall lanky guy, Jack McClafferty? and a couple others. They were talking about some voting irregularities in Washington (state?) by the Republicans. Apparantly, the people counting the ballots figured they could predict the outcome at a certain point in their counting..so packed it in before finishing. What the &*^? Canada may have to start sending down observers to make sure things are run on the up & up. Afterall someone has to help protect that fledging democracy you'all call the U.S.of A. |
What's going on down there??
Don White wrote:
While flippin' channels yesterday, I breezed through CNN. There was some king of panel with Wolfe Blitzer, that tall lanky guy, Jack McClafferty? and a couple others. They were talking about some voting irregularities in Washington (state?) by the Republicans. Apparantly, the people counting the ballots figured they could predict the outcome at a certain point in their counting..so packed it in before finishing. What the &*^? Canada may have to start sending down observers to make sure things are run on the up & up. Afterall someone has to help protect that fledging democracy you'all call the U.S.of A. That apparently is what happened. Despite a close race in the GOP primary, when the counters had counted about 80% of the ballots, the state GOP guy said that's enough, stop counting. Welcome to Amerika. In 2008, GOP voters will leave the polls with ink smudges on their thumbs they can hold up to show they favor elections, but not democracy. :-) |
What's going on down there??
On Feb 12, 10:37*am, "Don White" wrote:
While flippin' channels yesterday, I breezed through CNN. There was some king of panel with Wolfe Blitzer, that tall lanky guy, Jack McClafferty? and a couple others. They were talking about some voting irregularities in Washington (state?) by the Republicans. *Apparantly, the people counting the ballots figured they could predict the outcome at a certain point in their counting..so packed it in before finishing. *What the &*^? Canada may have to start sending down observers to make sure things are run on the up & up. Afterall someone has to help protect that fledging democracy you'all call the U.S.of A. It's a standard practice, probably done in every single state, or in your case province. .. Relax, your bankroll is not going anywhere... |
What's going on down there??
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:37:46 -0400, "Don White" wrote: Canada may have to start sending down observers to make sure things are run on the up & up. Sure why not. We can always learn new ways to create scandals from you folks. For example: snip... ~~ snerk ~~ Yikes...you went back 30 years on some of that material... If I did that for the US, I'd dominate the newsgroup for the next 2 light years! |
What's going on down there??
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:37:46 -0400, "Don White"
wrote: While flippin' channels yesterday, I breezed through CNN. There was some king of panel with Wolfe Blitzer, that tall lanky guy, Jack McClafferty? and a couple others. They were talking about some voting irregularities in Washington (state?) by the Republicans. Apparantly, the people counting the ballots figured they could predict the outcome at a certain point in their counting..so packed it in before finishing. What the &*^? Canada may have to start sending down observers to make sure things are run on the up & up. Afterall someone has to help protect that fledging democracy you'all call the U.S.of A. Don, if it's a 'winner take all' state, and one candidate already has over half the votes cast, then there is no reason to go any further with the counting. Are you wanting some Canadian scandals to read about? Every time you bring up something derogatory about the US, you get bitch-slapped with worse Canadian ****. When will you learn? You should just trail Harry and tell him how 'cool' he is. -- John H |
What's going on down there??
Thanks. I should have read your's first. Saved me some trouble.
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:23:05 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:37:46 -0400, "Don White" wrote: Canada may have to start sending down observers to make sure things are run on the up & up. Sure why not. We can always learn new ways to create scandals from you folks. For example: APEC Inquiry - 1997 - Royal Canadian Mounted Police conduct at the APEC summit in Vancouver. Shawinigate - 1999 - Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's profiting from property interests in his riding. Sponsorship scandal - 2004 - misuse and misdirection of funds disbursed through the Liberal government's 1990s sponsorship program. Investigated by the Gomery Commission. In and Out scandal - 2007 - alleged circumvention of election finance rules by the Conservatives in the 2006 election campaign Dar Heatherington - forced to resign from Lethbridge city council in 2004 after being convicted of public mischief. FastCat Fiasco (aka "Ferrygate" or simply "the Fast Ferries") - 1990s construction of a fleet of high speed ferry vessels that ended up being massively over-budget and actually slower than existing ferries Gordon Wilson-Judy Tyabji Affair (British Columbia Liberal Party) - semi-secret romance between the Opposition Leader and his House Whip leads to their downfall BC Legislature Raids ("Ledgegate") (BC Liberal Party) - raids on offices of senior political aides in the legislature connected to everything from marijuana grow-ops to questions connected with the sale of BC Rail to Canadian National. Ipperwash Crisis - incident involving the shooting death of Dudley George, an unarmed Native activist, by an Ontario Provincial Police officer in 1995 Kimberly Rogers - After a disputed welfare fraud conviction, Rogers committed suicide in her Sudbury apartment while under house arrest in 2001, leading to extensive controversy around the Mike Harris government's 1996 welfare reforms, as well as an inquest which made several still-unimplemented recommendations for changes to the system. Toronto Computer Leasing Inquiry - judicial inquiry into improper computer leasing contracts made by Toronto's municipal government in 1999 Walkerton water scandal in the year 2000 Toronto Police Drug Scandal - multiple scandals broke out in early 2004, as a result of internal affairs and RCMP investigations. Allegations of the sale of narcotics, fake search warrants, raid tip-offs and mob gambling debts involved many dozens of Toronto police officers, including former chief William J. McCormack's son, Michael, who was eventually brought up on 23 charges. As a result of the scandal, the plainclothes downtown unit which many of the charged officers worked out of was disbanded. The court cases relating to these charges continue. The Thornhill Affair - involved Roland Thornhill, who resigned as Deputy Premier in the 1990s after allegations dealing with a debt settlement from 1980 was brought into question. The Billy Joe MacLean Affair - MLA Billy Joe MacLean was expelled from the Assembly after Premier John Buchanan's Progressive Conservative government introduced legislation prohibiting anyone from sitting in the assembly who had been indicted by the courts. Progressive Conservative Party of Saskatchewan scandals - Scandals that emerged in the 1990s involving Grant Devine's Progressive Conservative government implicating 16 MLAs, with the chief conviction that of Deputy Premier Eric Berntson in 1999. Colin Thatcher murder. ~~ snerk ~~ -- John H |
What's going on down there??
wrote in message ... On Feb 12, 10:37 am, "Don White" wrote: While flippin' channels yesterday, I breezed through CNN. There was some king of panel with Wolfe Blitzer, that tall lanky guy, Jack McClafferty? and a couple others. They were talking about some voting irregularities in Washington (state?) by the Republicans. Apparantly, the people counting the ballots figured they could predict the outcome at a certain point in their counting..so packed it in before finishing. What the &*^? Canada may have to start sending down observers to make sure things are run on the up & up. Afterall someone has to help protect that fledging democracy you'all call the U.S.of A. It's a standard practice, probably done in every single state, or in your case province. .. Relax, your bankroll is not going anywhere... Could be...but the CNN guys didn't think much of the practice. |
What's going on down there??
Don White wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:37:46 -0400, "Don White" wrote: Canada may have to start sending down observers to make sure things are run on the up & up. Sure why not. We can always learn new ways to create scandals from you folks. For example: snip... ~~ snerk ~~ Yikes...you went back 30 years on some of that material... If I did that for the US, I'd dominate the newsgroup for the next 2 light years! You won't be able to top this scandal: George W. Bush & Dick(less) Cheney. Go ahead...make my day. :- |
What's going on down there??
On Feb 12, 7:37�am, "Don White" wrote:
While flippin' channels yesterday, I breezed through CNN. There was some king of panel with Wolfe Blitzer, that tall lanky guy, Jack McClafferty? and a couple others. They were talking about some voting irregularities in Washington (state?) by the Republicans. �Apparantly, the people counting the ballots figured they could predict the outcome at a certain point in their counting..so packed it in before finishing. �What the &*^? Canada may have to start sending down observers to make sure things are run on the up & up. Afterall someone has to help protect that fledging democracy you'all call the U.S.of A. And here's the irony; Our current state governor (a D) was elected by a margin of a couple of hundred votes, maybe less. With over a million votes to count, our state law requires a recount if the margin is less than percent or so. The quick and dirty first count showed the Republican winning by a very slim margin. The recount reversed the outcome, with some errors in the state's largest county (also the most extremely D county) being discovered. Even though there were at least a few errors in virtually *every* county in the state, the R team focused on the errors found in the most urban county and began screaming "Vote Fraud! The count has been rigged in the liberal county to change the outcome!!" Roll the clock forward to the Republican primary; With 80-some percent of the votes counted the officially "preferred" Republican candidate had a narrow lead. Rather than risk any change in the desired outcome, the R's decided to simply *stop counting* the rest of the ballots! (Vote fraud, indeed). Huckabee's legal team put enough pressure on the state party that counting resumed. It didn't change the outcome, but it sure took the wind out of the R party sails for the next time they lose by a narrow amount and want to claim there were irregularities in the count. I guess 99.99% accurate is only an acceptable standard if the final totals reflect the results wanted. Errors are made in favor of as well as against both sides in every count, but outright fruad is pretty rare. |
What's going on down there??
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:07:09 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote: On Feb 12, 7:37?am, "Don White" wrote: While flippin' channels yesterday, I breezed through CNN. There was some king of panel with Wolfe Blitzer, that tall lanky guy, Jack McClafferty? and a couple others. They were talking about some voting irregularities in Washington (state?) by the Republicans. ?Apparantly, the people counting the ballots figured they could predict the outcome at a certain point in their counting..so packed it in before finishing. ?What the &*^? Canada may have to start sending down observers to make sure things are run on the up & up. Afterall someone has to help protect that fledging democracy you'all call the U.S.of A. And here's the irony; Our current state governor (a D) was elected by a margin of a couple of hundred votes, maybe less. With over a million votes to count, our state law requires a recount if the margin is less than percent or so. The quick and dirty first count showed the Republican winning by a very slim margin. The recount reversed the outcome, with some errors in the state's largest county (also the most extremely D county) being discovered. Even though there were at least a few errors in virtually *every* county in the state, the R team focused on the errors found in the most urban county and began screaming "Vote Fraud! The count has been rigged in the liberal county to change the outcome!!" Roll the clock forward to the Republican primary; With 80-some percent of the votes counted the officially "preferred" Republican candidate had a narrow lead. Rather than risk any change in the desired outcome, the R's decided to simply *stop counting* the rest of the ballots! (Vote fraud, indeed). Huckabee's legal team put enough pressure on the state party that counting resumed. It didn't change the outcome, but it sure took the wind out of the R party sails for the next time they lose by a narrow amount and want to claim there were irregularities in the count. I guess 99.99% accurate is only an acceptable standard if the final totals reflect the results wanted. Errors are made in favor of as well as against both sides in every count, but outright fruad is pretty rare. I'm going to try to make up for all your problems, Chuck. The wife and I will be voting for Obama in about 15 minutes! -- John H |
What's going on down there??
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 12:50:18 -0400, "Don White" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message . .. On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:37:46 -0400, "Don White" wrote: Canada may have to start sending down observers to make sure things are run on the up & up. Sure why not. We can always learn new ways to create scandals from you folks. For example: snip... ~~ snerk ~~ Yikes...you went back 30 years on some of that material... If I did that for the US, I'd dominate the newsgroup for the next 2 light years! Well, you started it. :) Speaking of which, you getting itchy to put that Princecraft in the water? Weather is just too cool to even dream of it. I do have to go out and brush Sundays heavy snowfall off the tarp. At least the waves at the harbour mouth are down to about six feet from over nine on the weekend. Air temp is a balmy 24F but they stopped reporting the ocean temp for some reason. |
What's going on down there??
On Feb 12, 10:37*am, "Don White" wrote:
While flippin' channels yesterday, I breezed through CNN. There was some king of panel with Wolfe Blitzer, that tall lanky guy, Jack McClafferty? and a couple others. They were talking about some voting irregularities in Washington (state?) by the Republicans. *Apparantly, the people counting the ballots figured they could predict the outcome at a certain point in their counting..so packed it in before finishing. *What the &*^? Canada may have to start sending down observers to make sure things are run on the up & up. Afterall someone has to help protect that fledging democracy you'all call the U.S.of A. Let me take a few wild guess's. Your Democrats......... You beleave the "problems" with the Florida vote were for real...... I lived in Long Beach NY for about 10 years. The Republicans had been complaining for years about fraud on mail in ballots. So they checked the mailed in ballots for names of people that were dead, and guess what, there they were. Then they checked the names of old people in the Nursing Homes that didn't even know where they were, and guess again, they had somehow filled out their cards. Their was one thing in common, all those dead people, and the folks that didn't know where they were, had all voted for Democrats, how strange. Their wasn't that much of a stink made over it, ballot stuffing is a Democratic party tradition. They were doing it in the south for a long time, it just took a while to work it's way north. Look at the so called super delagates that the Democrats use in primary's, but Republicans don't have any such thing. Those super delagates are used to make sure the people that run the party get their way, who cares about what the voters think. |
What's going on down there??
On Feb 12, 9:17�am, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:07:09 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: On Feb 12, 7:37?am, "Don White" wrote: While flippin' channels yesterday, I breezed through CNN. There was some king of panel with Wolfe Blitzer, that tall lanky guy, Jack McClafferty? and a couple others. They were talking about some voting irregularities in Washington (state?) by the Republicans. ?Apparantly, the people counting the ballots figured they could predict the outcome at a certain point in their counting..so packed it in before finishing. ?What the &*^? Canada may have to start sending down observers to make sure things are run on the up & up. Afterall someone has to help protect that fledging democracy you'all call the U.S.of A. And here's the irony; Our current state governor (a D) was elected by a margin of a couple of hundred votes, maybe less. With over a million votes to count, our state law requires a recount if the margin is less than percent or so. The quick and dirty first count showed the Republican winning by a very slim margin. The recount reversed the outcome, with some errors in the state's largest county (also the most extremely D county) being discovered. Even though there were at least a few errors in virtually *every* county in the state, the R team focused on the errors found in the most urban county and began screaming "Vote Fraud! The count has been rigged in the liberal county to change the outcome!!" Roll the clock forward to the Republican primary; With 80-some percent of the votes counted the officially "preferred" Republican candidate had a narrow lead. Rather than risk any change in the desired outcome, the R's decided to simply *stop counting* the rest of the ballots! (Vote fraud, indeed). Huckabee's legal team put enough pressure on the state party that counting resumed. It didn't change the outcome, but it sure took the wind out of the R party sails for the next time they lose by a narrow amount and want to claim there were irregularities in the count. I guess 99.99% accurate is only an acceptable standard if the final totals reflect the results wanted. Errors are made in favor of as well as against both sides in every count, but outright fruad is pretty rare. I'm going to try to make up for all your problems, Chuck. The wife and I will be voting for Obama in about 15 minutes! -- John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Good for you, John. While I have not yet decided whether I would support McCain in a contest vs. Obama I haven't ruled it out- not by a long ways. (I definitely prefer McCain to Hillary Clinton). Nice to see folks who are open minded enough to cross party lines. If I were part of a political party, I'd like to think I would do the same when conditions warranted. Everybody making their most carefully considered individual choice is how we wind up with (hopefully) the best overall collective choice. |
What's going on down there??
On Feb 12, 1:08�pm, "JimH" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message ... On Feb 12, 9:17?am, John H. wrote: On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:07:09 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: On Feb 12, 7:37?am, "Don White" wrote: While flippin' channels yesterday, I breezed through CNN. There was some king of panel with Wolfe Blitzer, that tall lanky guy, Jack McClafferty? and a couple others. They were talking about some voting irregularities in Washington (state?) by the Republicans. ?Apparantly, the people counting the ballots figured they could predict the outcome at a certain point in their counting..so packed it in before finishing. ?What the &*^? Canada may have to start sending down observers to make sure things are run on the up & up. Afterall someone has to help protect that fledging democracy you'all call the U.S.of A. And here's the irony; Our current state governor (a D) was elected by a margin of a couple of hundred votes, maybe less. With over a million votes to count, our state law requires a recount if the margin is less than percent or so. The quick and dirty first count showed the Republican winning by a very slim margin. The recount reversed the outcome, with some errors in the state's largest county (also the most extremely D county) being discovered. Even though there were at least a few errors in virtually *every* county in the state, the R team focused on the errors found in the most urban county and began screaming "Vote Fraud! The count has been rigged in the liberal county to change the outcome!!" Roll the clock forward to the Republican primary; With 80-some percent of the votes counted the officially "preferred" Republican candidate had a narrow lead. Rather than risk any change in the desired outcome, the R's decided to simply *stop counting* the rest of the ballots! (Vote fraud, indeed). Huckabee's legal team put enough pressure on the state party that counting resumed. It didn't change the outcome, but it sure took the wind out of the R party sails for the next time they lose by a narrow amount and want to claim there were irregularities in the count. I guess 99.99% accurate is only an acceptable standard if the final totals reflect the results wanted. Errors are made in favor of as well as against both sides in every count, but outright fruad is pretty rare. I'm going to try to make up for all your problems, Chuck. The wife and I will be voting for Obama in about 15 minutes! -- John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Good for you, John. While I have not yet decided whether I would support McCain in a contest vs. Obama I haven't ruled it out- not by a long ways. (I definitely prefer McCain to Hillary Clinton). Nice to see folks who are open minded enough to cross party lines. If I were part of a political party, I'd like to think I would do the same when conditions warranted. Everybody making their most carefully considered individual choice is how we wind up with (hopefully) the best overall collective choice. -------------- Why anyone would vote for someone promising to raise taxes, increase the size of government, expand entitlement programs and force their health insurance plan on us is beyond me. Why anyone would vote for someone not offering any solutions or plans, yet talking a big game is beyond me. One thing I do know...........the guy sure knows how to convince some (many?) that they should vote for him despite those promises and despite the lack of plans or solutions.........another Great and Powerful Oz! Maybe it is because Obama is such an eloquent speaker............a very powerful tool after listening to Dubya these past 7+ years. My oh my!- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - In my opinion, Obama is doing fairly well right now for a variety of reasons. As you mentioned, he is an excellent speaker. While McCain and Clinton are both well-spoken, Obama seems to be up a level or so beyond standard political speech making. (As opposed to GWB who is at least slighty below average in this category). As much as anything else, I think people are finally sick to death of "politics as usual." The prospect of electing a Clinton seems like moving the clock back to the 1990's, not ahead into the 2010's. McCain is an honorable and capable politician, but that may be his major stumbling block- he's a career politican. Whatever else, we can't keep trying to pull the middle of the country to the far left or far right and thinking of fellow Americans as "the enemy". If any of these candidates can attact a new, centrist plurality that crosses traditional party lines that would likely be very good for he country. Just think, Jim.....there's a possiblity that two guys as politically opposite as you and I might even vote for the same candidate in Nov. Who'da imagined such a thing at this time last year? :-) |
What's going on down there??
On Feb 12, 4:36Â*pm, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 12, 1:08�pm, "JimH" wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message ... On Feb 12, 9:17?am, John H. wrote: On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:07:09 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: On Feb 12, 7:37?am, "Don White" wrote: While flippin' channels yesterday, I breezed through CNN. There was some king of panel with Wolfe Blitzer, that tall lanky guy, Jack McClafferty? and a couple others. They were talking about some voting irregularities in Washington (state?) by the Republicans. ?Apparantly, the people counting the ballots figured they could predict the outcome at a certain point in their counting..so packed it in before finishing. ?What the &*^? Canada may have to start sending down observers to make sure things are run on the up & up. Afterall someone has to help protect that fledging democracy you'all call the U.S.of A. And here's the irony; Our current state governor (a D) was elected by a margin of a couple of hundred votes, maybe less. With over a million votes to count, our state law requires a recount if the margin is less than percent or so.. The quick and dirty first count showed the Republican winning by a very slim margin. The recount reversed the outcome, with some errors in the state's largest county (also the most extremely D county) being discovered. Even though there were at least a few errors in virtually *every* county in the state, the R team focused on the errors found in the most urban county and began screaming "Vote Fraud! The count has been rigged in the liberal county to change the outcome!!" Roll the clock forward to the Republican primary; With 80-some percent of the votes counted the officially "preferred" Republican candidate had a narrow lead. Rather than risk any change in the desired outcome, the R's decided to simply *stop counting* the rest of the ballots! (Vote fraud, indeed). Huckabee's legal team put enough pressure on the state party that counting resumed. It didn't change the outcome, but it sure took the wind out of the R party sails for the next time they lose by a narrow amount and want to claim there were irregularities in the count. I guess 99.99% accurate is only an acceptable standard if the final totals reflect the results wanted. Errors are made in favor of as well as against both sides in every count, but outright fruad is pretty rare. I'm going to try to make up for all your problems, Chuck. The wife and I will be voting for Obama in about 15 minutes! -- John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Good for you, John. While I have not yet decided whether I would support McCain in a contest vs. Obama I haven't ruled it out- not by a long ways. (I definitely prefer McCain to Hillary Clinton). Nice to see folks who are open minded enough to cross party lines. If I were part of a political party, I'd like to think I would do the same when conditions warranted. Everybody making their most carefully considered individual choice is how we wind up with (hopefully) the best overall collective choice. -------------- Why anyone would vote for someone promising to raise taxes, increase the size of government, expand entitlement programs and force their health insurance plan on us is beyond me. Why anyone would vote for someone not offering any solutions or plans, yet talking a big game is beyond me. One thing I do know...........the guy sure knows how to convince some (many?) that they should vote for him despite those promises and despite the lack of plans or solutions.........another Great and Powerful Oz! Maybe it is because Obama is such an eloquent speaker............a very powerful tool after listening to Dubya these past 7+ years. My oh my!- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - In my opinion, Obama is doing fairly well right now for a variety of reasons. As you mentioned, he is an excellent speaker. While McCain and Clinton are both well-spoken, Obama seems to be up a level or so beyond standard political speech making. (As opposed to GWB who is at least slighty below average in this category). As much as anything else, I think people are finally sick to death of "politics as usual." The prospect of electing a Clinton seems like moving the clock back to the 1990's, not ahead into the 2010's. McCain is an honorable and capable politician, but that may be his major stumbling block- he's a career politican. Whatever else, we can't keep trying to pull the middle of the country to the far left or far right and thinking of fellow Americans as "the enemy". If any of these candidates can attact a new, centrist plurality that crosses traditional party lines that would likely be very good for he country. Just think, Jim.....there's a possiblity that two guys as politically opposite as you and I might even vote for the same candidate in Nov. Who'da imagined such a thing at this time last year? Â*:-)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I did see an interesting group of undecided democrat voters in a live poll last night. Not a bunch of loaded questions with a loaded group either. Anyway, it was interesting as they answered questions about Billary and Obama. Several things came out. They all think Obama stands a better chance, but Billary has more experience. To the last one everyone said they would cross over, just as long as the democrat wins. Another interesting question was, what has Obama done that would qualify him to run the country. One said he was black, another said he had been elected to congress, another said he stood for hope, but not one person in the room could qualify him beyond that... It was a very interesting question and answer with real undecides, and relevant, unloaded questions... very interesting. |
What's going on down there??
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 12:37:21 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote: On Feb 12, 9:17?am, John H. wrote: On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:07:09 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould wrote: On Feb 12, 7:37?am, "Don White" wrote: While flippin' channels yesterday, I breezed through CNN. There was some king of panel with Wolfe Blitzer, that tall lanky guy, Jack McClafferty? and a couple others. They were talking about some voting irregularities in Washington (state?) by the Republicans. ?Apparantly, the people counting the ballots figured they could predict the outcome at a certain point in their counting..so packed it in before finishing. ?What the &*^? Canada may have to start sending down observers to make sure things are run on the up & up. Afterall someone has to help protect that fledging democracy you'all call the U.S.of A. And here's the irony; Our current state governor (a D) was elected by a margin of a couple of hundred votes, maybe less. With over a million votes to count, our state law requires a recount if the margin is less than percent or so. The quick and dirty first count showed the Republican winning by a very slim margin. The recount reversed the outcome, with some errors in the state's largest county (also the most extremely D county) being discovered. Even though there were at least a few errors in virtually *every* county in the state, the R team focused on the errors found in the most urban county and began screaming "Vote Fraud! The count has been rigged in the liberal county to change the outcome!!" Roll the clock forward to the Republican primary; With 80-some percent of the votes counted the officially "preferred" Republican candidate had a narrow lead. Rather than risk any change in the desired outcome, the R's decided to simply *stop counting* the rest of the ballots! (Vote fraud, indeed). Huckabee's legal team put enough pressure on the state party that counting resumed. It didn't change the outcome, but it sure took the wind out of the R party sails for the next time they lose by a narrow amount and want to claim there were irregularities in the count. I guess 99.99% accurate is only an acceptable standard if the final totals reflect the results wanted. Errors are made in favor of as well as against both sides in every count, but outright fruad is pretty rare. I'm going to try to make up for all your problems, Chuck. The wife and I will be voting for Obama in about 15 minutes! -- John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Good for you, John. While I have not yet decided whether I would support McCain in a contest vs. Obama I haven't ruled it out- not by a long ways. (I definitely prefer McCain to Hillary Clinton). Nice to see folks who are open minded enough to cross party lines. If I were part of a political party, I'd like to think I would do the same when conditions warranted. Everybody making their most carefully considered individual choice is how we wind up with (hopefully) the best overall collective choice. Well, I'd definitely not vote for Obama in the general election. I'd hate to do that to the USA. But, if McCain should lose in the general, I'd much rather look at Obama for the next four years than Hillary and Billy. -- John H |
What's going on down there??
|
What's going on down there??
Don White wrote:
While flippin' channels yesterday, I breezed through CNN. There was some king of panel with Wolfe Blitzer, that tall lanky guy, Jack McClafferty? and a couple others. They were talking about some voting irregularities in Washington (state?) by the Republicans. Apparantly, the people counting the ballots figured they could predict the outcome at a certain point in their counting..so packed it in before finishing. What the &*^? Canada may have to start sending down observers to make sure things are run on the up & up. Afterall someone has to help protect that fledging democracy you'all call the U.S.of A. Statistics. You don't need to know how *everybody* voted. So if you have a statistically significant sample, that's enough. So, if you took a statistically significant sample of the *original* sample, you wouldn't have count all of *them*, either. So, if you took...well, you see where I'm going with this. We really only need to count one vote, then we can extrapolate from there. DT |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:14 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com