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 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. :-)

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...

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.