Congress Debate forced

[MannyIsGod]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&ncid=703&e=2&u=/ap/20050106/ap_on_go_co/electoral_vote

You know, it's really not going to mean shit in the result, but I thinkit's a good move for the party. Also, I want to know what the hell actually happend in Ohio.

[Useruser666]

I say go for it. I just would like a final decision though. I don't want this to draw out and linger.

[Uncle Donnie]

If it's really not going to mean shit, how can it be a good move? It makes an already weak party look even more whiny.

I don't know, I just see this as backfiring big time.

[Yonivore]

I and most of America agree with Uncle Donnie on this one...hell, even John Kerry has said, get over it.

[NeoConIV]

Major senatorial bloviations...

"I believe George W Bush won the election, I believe he won in Ohio...", said Barrack Obama...

Then...?
What's this about again?

[Bandit2981]

maybe read the article? it states like 3 or 4 times what the purpose is

[NeoConIV]

What a waste of time. Complete and utter waste of time. I'm SURE they'd be debating these crucial issues had Kerry won. I'm sure of it!!!

Gimme a friggin break. Barbara Boxer still the only one putting her name on it? What a joke.

[Yonivore]

maybe read the article? it states like 3 or 4 times what the purpose is
Okay, I read it and can only glean the following:


"I have concluded that objecting to the electoral votes from Ohio is the only immediate way to bring these issues to light by allowing you to have a two-hour debate to let the American people know the facts surrounding Ohio's election," Boxer wrote in a letter to Tubbs Jones, a leader of the Democratic effort.
Doesn't go on to say what issues these issues are.

Or this:


Supporters of the drive said that rather than changing the election outcome, their hope was to shine a national spotlight on the Ohio voting problems.

What Ohio voting problems? the article assumes everyone believes there was a problem in Ohio.


"The goal is to debate the issue," Tubbs Jones said in an interview. "And why not? We go across the world trying to ensure democracy, but there are some problems with the process in the United States."

Again, no specific allegation.


[after saying he wouldn't join the challenge] In a statement, Kerry said there are "very troubling questions" about the Ohio voting and he would present a plan later to improve voting procedures.

What questions, the article doesn't say.


"We cannot keep turning our eyes away from a flawed system particularly as we have people dying in Iraq (news - web sites) every day to bring democracy to those people," she said.

What flaws?


House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., declined to say whether she supports Boxer's decision, but said the move would call public attention to voting problems. She said she would vote to uphold the Ohio vote.

What problems?


On Wednesday, Rep. John Conyers (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan, top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee (news - web sites), issued a report claiming "numerous, serious election irregularities in the Ohio presidential election," and cited machine shortages and extremely long lines in minority and Democratic precincts.

Finally, a specific! But, did that prevent voters from voting or just lazy or impatient voters from voting? And, are those the "serious" election irregularities to which he was referring? He doesn't say.

Again, the question stands...what's the purpose of the debate?

[NeoConIV]

LOL Yoni...exactly.

This is just democratic sore-loserism on display.

[FromWayDowntown]

Yes, heaven forbid that we spend some time discussing concerns about a Presidential election and debating ways to improve the election process in this country. It may be that the voting irregularities and other concerns that certainly seem to persist after both the 2000 and 2004 elections are somewhat nuanced or otherwise incapable of reduction to an explanation that is succinct enough to be palatable to a newspaper's audience. There could be all kinds of explanations for not identifying specifics in a piece filled with quick hitting comments.

Isn't a presidential election -- and acknowledged concerns over the manner in which votes were cast and counted -- a signficant enough issue to warrant congressional attention? Probably not, since this administration and its friends in Congress had absolutely no interest in conducting any significant investigation into the single worst terrorist attack in U.S. history until shamed into it by the families of those who died. I guess Congress should only spend its time on IMPORTANT issues.

[Yonivore]

Yes, heaven forbid that we spend some time discussing concerns about a Presidential election and debating ways to improve the election process in this country. It may be that the voting irregularities and other concerns that certainly seem to persist after both the 2000 and 2004 elections are somewhat nuanced or otherwise incapable of reduction to an explanation that is succinct enough to be palatable to a newspaper's audience. There could be all kinds of explanations for not identifying specifics in a piece filled with quick hitting comments.

Isn't a presidential election -- and acknowledged concerns over the manner in which votes were cast and counted -- a signficant enough issue to warrant congressional attention? Probably not, since this administration and its friends in Congress had absolutely no interest in conducting any significant investigation into the single worst terrorist attack in U.S. history until shamed into it by the families of those who died. I guess Congress should only spend its time on IMPORTANT issues.
Many of us believe the "concerns" are specious and politically motivated and, therefore, unworthy of a debate that stalls the process. Let them have the debate at a state level or in their respecitive caucuses...debate is fine, it's the timing, venue, and ambiguity of their argument that has me dubious.

[NeoConIV]

Isn't a presidential election -- and acknowledged concerns over the manner in which votes were cast and counted -- a signficant enough issue to warrant congressional attention?
Gotta love the timing!!

This charade isn't fooling anyone. That ISN'T what this is about FWDT. This is about pandering to their base.

Really, you think Boxer, Clinton, Obama, Reid...all these guys would be saying what they're saying today if Kerry won? Spare me.

[Yonivore]

And another thing...there have been "questions" about every President election since 1789; usually brought up by the losing candidate.

[NeoConIV]

Let them bloviate and blather as long as they like.

[Nbadan]

:rolleyes

Spare me the crying over the timing. Hardly a word has been said by anyone in Congress about this issue until today. One Republican Senator even called the protection of democracy by Democrats today "irrevelant". This despite clear evidence that in Ohio alone there was wide-spread voter disenfranchisement, statistical evidence of optical-scanner e-voting fraud, and the Secretary of State elections and (not coincidently) also the GOP State Chairman, who called Ohio for W, openly boasting about how he helped deliver Ohio to the Republican party and the 'Christian Coalition'.. Shades of Katheleen Harris anyone?

[NeoConIV]

You think they would be bloviating today if Kerry won Dan?

[Spurminator]

I bet Republicans would be.

Whether it's politically motivated or not (and there can be no doubt that it IS), there are a lot of improvements that need to be made before the 2008 election. It amazes me that we still do not have one uniform ballot system across the nation. Or at least within each state.

[Nbadan]

You think they would be bloviating today if Kerry won Dan?

You think Hastert, Delay, and even our own Senators, Hutchingson and Bonilla would have sat on their hands like they did today had Kerry won with the same irregularities now documented to have happened in Ohio?

[NeoConIV]

our own Senators, Hutchingson and Bonilla
You drinking the sauce? :lol

[Bandit2981]

Barbara Boxer still the only one putting her name on it?
you only need one senator to get it done, she signed on.

What Ohio voting problems? the article assumes everyone believes there was a problem in Ohio.
hmm, since you are predictably unaware that any irregularities took place in ohio, i'll post some for you.

link (http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/2004_Ohio_Irregularities_-_Details)
County Specific Matters
Cuyahoga:
o Much has been written about its municipalities having different numbers than townships. This issue seems to have been settled, with the explanation being that absentee ballots were reported as part of precinct totals, resulting in more votes being reported than actually voted at the precinct. The "ward summary" entries were not added into the county vote totals, so whatever their purpose for allocating absentee ballots across multiple municipal jurisdictions, they had no impact on the county returns. This can be proven by adding up the precinct-level votes and the votes recorded from absentee ballots, resulting in an exact match with the 'official' county totals. This diary (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/10/192435/98) has a good examination of per-precinct turnout in Cuyahoga.
o More seriously, only 2/3 of Cuyahoga's provisionals are being considered valid so far. Cuyahoga has a Republican in the chair position of their board of elections. How do we fight this?
o A watchdog group has filed a lawsuit (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/26/provisionalballots.ohio.ap/index.html) challenging the number of invalid provisionals in Cuyahoga County.
o An excellent graph (http://www.copperas.com/cuyahoga/s_cuyprobrace.jpg) correlating voting problems to Cuyahoga precincts with a high percentage of black voters. Also: scatter plot comparing Kerry support to spoilage for precincts (http://www.copperas.com/cuyahoga/s_cuyprobrace.jpg)
o This diary (http://dailykos.com/story/2004/11/30/143956/28) refers to this report (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/257365p-220441c.html) by Juan Gonzales at the NY Daily News that shows very strange spikes for third party candidates in some Cuyahoga precincts, the theory being that they were votes intended for Kerry. It is unclear if this happened statewide or in just these particular precincts.
o This diary (http://dailykos.com/story/2004/12/2/44647/2043) uncovers the practice of some precincts being given the wrong instructions of how candidates matched up to ballot placement. So a candidate would be following the instructions to vote for Kerry, but would actually be voting for Peroutka or Badnarik.

Franklin:
o Election officials have acknowledged the 3,893-vote Gahanna precinct error and promised to correct it. That error was found by comparing the unofficial abstract of votes casts by precinct to votes for each candidate. It will be applied to the margin later, before certification.
- Official voting abstract corrected this precinct and removed the extra 3,893 Bush votes, along with 87 write-in votes.
- Precinct Columbus 58F was modified and 215 new votes added (1 BADNARIK, 100 BUSH, 110 KERRY, 2 PETROUKA, 2 NO VOTE)
o No official acknowledgment of the double entry -- and double tabulation -- of the absentee ballots (in unofficial abstract). Neither the Franklin Co BOE site nor the OH SoS site have yet been updated to reflect these corrections. See Ohio Franklin County Absentees. (http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Ohio_Franklin_County_Absentees)
- Official Abstract now has 3 lines for Absentee precincts.
- Presumedly, the original 2 precincts were created to split the absentee pile in half, for some unknown reason.
- The updated absentee results contain 5,753 new absentee votes split amoung "ABSENTEE 1" and "ABSENTEE 2".
- A new precinct was created called "ABSENTEE 3" which contains 12,124 votes (61% of these are for Kerry). This new precinct category is probably the accepted provisional ballots.
o This diary (http://dailykos.com/story/2004/11/16/11456/736) from Renee features an article that shows Democratic precincts here had far more voters per voting machine than Republican precints - leading to slower voting, and more malfunctions. Here are three excellent scatterplots showing this graphically. (http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/900)
o Another graph (http://www.copperas.com/fcweb/fcprobs.gif) correlating voting problems to Franklin precincts with a high percentage of black voters.
o This diary (http://dailykos.com/story/2004/11/30/71935/724) refers to a report by Richard Hayes Phillips which details evidence of voting machines being deliberately relocated from black precincts to affluent suburb precincts, and implicates Franklin County Board of Elections Director Matt Damschroder. The estimate is that it cost Kerry 17,000 votes in Franklin County.
o The AP (http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?Category=13&ID=197345&r=1) has finally picked up on the missing voting machine story. The article which appeared in the Columbus Dispatch cites 39 voting machines sitting unused out of a total of 2,840 machines. Damschroder's email (http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/985) claimed 88 machines were unused out of a total of 2,866.
o Using the exact same DRE voting machines in 2000 and 2004, the undervotes (no president picked) in 2000, averaged around 0.55% of the votes in a precinct. In 2004, the number of undervotes averaged 1.10% of the total precinct votes. If the undervote percentage was identical (same machines used), this would result in a difference of 2,500 ballots that were not under-counted in 2004.

Knox: a rural county, has had a few reports - according to one report (http://dailykos.com/comments/2004/11/12/153843/78/5#5), some of their machines didn't have paper trails. According to another (http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2004/11/11/72256/498/13#13), a democratic precinct had only one voting machine and the last vote was cast at 3 AM.

Lucas:
o Unlike most other counties, over half of their provisionals were judged invalid, which needs to be protested. The remaining ballots went to Kerry by a very large margin, one of the largest margins in the state. There could be one or two thousand lost Kerry votes here.
o It had tabulation errors (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/10/192051/38) in 4 precincts regarding a school-levy issue. There was also a 10-vote discrepancy in Badnarik's total; and one precinct -- Toledo 2-C -- had the pres candidates listed in a different order than all other precincts, but looks like an artifact of the report and has no effect on the vote count.

Miami: This article (http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1003&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0) raises a question about how it reported its results (about halfway down the page).

Sandusky: According to the AP (http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Ohio-Ballots.html&OQ=orefQ3DloginQ26orefQ3DloginQ26orefQ3Dlogin), it double-counted 2600 ballots due to worker error. These were re-examined as part of the provisional counting process, and with provisionals added in, Kerry gained about 375 in voting margin.

Warren: The Cincinnati Enquirer broke the story on the vote count, where reporters and some offical observers were locked out of the county building and not permitted to observe. County officials stated that the lockout was due to Homeland Security concerns relayed to them in a face-to-face meeting with an FBI agent. They further stated that the FBI told them Lebanon, Ohio rated a "10" for terrorist threats. On November 10, the Enquirer published a follow-up (http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/11/10/loc_warrenvote10.html) article in which FBI and state security officals said no such warnings had been issued. (Democracy Now interview (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/10/1536254) with Enquirer reporter Erica Solvig)

there's a few for you...again, the whole purpose of the hearings today isnt to overturn the election, but to address these problems and how to solve them so we can have a better working election system

[Nbadan]

You drinking the sauce? :lol

Ok Hutch, but Bonilla sponsored the Tom Delay Ethics Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Bill, so he's just as guilty.

[GoldToe]

Some things need to said regardless of what the other party thinks. Silence is for the weak.

[NeoConIV]

Some things need to said regardless of what the other party thinks. Silence is for the weak.

Werd dawg! I maintain that I think they should bloviate as long as they like. It's a free country.

[Yonivore]

Whew! After careful review of my own posts, I was gladdened to find I did not suggest they be silenced...

[NeoConIV]

you crack me up Yoni...

[Yonivore]

you crack me up Yoni...
It's an affliction, I assure you.

[GoldToe]

After reading some of Yonivore's posts I think he's on crack. :lol

[Yonivore]

After reading some of Yonivore's posts I think he's on crack. :lol
Then we all should be...

[FromWayDowntown]

I certainly didn't suggest that there was an agenda to silence anyone -- only that there is a discounting of the significance of the concerns raised about the election.

Shouldn't concerns about the exercise of the franchise be among the most significant and most carefully-heeded that arise in this republic?

I'm sure there's some political motivation at play here -- all of politics is driven by some political motivation. But, I'd dispute that this is any ploy to diminish the Bush victory or suggest it to be improper -- had it been that, these issues would have been much more significantly raised before the electoral college met. There is no dispute in what I've read about the result of the election itself (though I understand that there are cynics among us). This is about the system -- after two hotly-contested elections in which there has been at least some controversy about the canvassing and counting of ballots, ensuring that votes are counted in some uniform matter would certainly seem to be a matter of Constitutional magnitude (you know, those guarantees of equal protection under the law and the commitment to protecting fundamental rights like the right to vote).

Nothing personal, Yonivore, but there's nothing libertarian about resisting debate on a federal level concerning that issue; it's purely anti-federalist. But, when you're dealing with the altogether federalist idea of a national election of an official, advancing anti-federalist ideas seems to wholly disregard what's at stake.

I can't see how the exchange of ideas about ways in which to improve the system by which we elect our President can be discounted as something that does not warrant any congressional attention.


. . . . and Dan, currently John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchinson are the senators from Texas -- I'm not passing on your credibility or acumen, but I can assure you that others around here will use that as a badge to attack both, so I'd suggest you get it right.

[Yonivore]

I certainly didn't suggest that there was an agenda to silence anyone -- only that there is a discounting of the significance of the concerns raised about the election.

Shouldn't concerns about the exercise of the franchise be among the most significant and most carefully-heeded that arise in this republic?

I'm sure there's some political motivation at play here -- all of politics is driven by some political motivation. But, I'd dispute that this is any ploy to diminish the Bush victory or suggest it to be improper -- had it been that, these issues would have been much more significantly raised before the electoral college met. There is no dispute in what I've read about the result of the election itself (though I understand that there are cynics among us). This is about the system -- after two hotly-contested elections in which there has been at least some controversy about the canvassing and counting of ballots, ensuring that votes are counted in some uniform matter would certainly seem to be a matter of Constitutional magnitude (you know, those guarantees of equal protection under the law and the commitment to protecting fundamental rights like the right to vote).

Nothing personal, Yonivore, but there's nothing libertarian about resisting debate on a federal level concerning that issue; it's purely anti-federalist. But, when you're dealing with the altogether federalist idea of a national election of an official, advancing anti-federalist ideas seems to wholly disregard what's at stake.

I can't see how the exchange of ideas about ways in which to improve the system by which we elect our President can be discounted as something that does not warrant any congressional attention.


. . . . and Dan, currently John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchinson are the senators from Texas -- I'm not passing on your credibility or acumen, but I can assure you that others around here will use that as a badge to attack both, so I'd suggest you get it right.

Except you forget the framers never intended for the President to be elected by popular national vote. In fact, they never envisioned ANY popular national vote for any office.

Yeah, I think this debate is ridiculous.

[Hook Dem]

By all means investigate!!!! And then shut the fuck up! :lol

[Guru of Nothing]

Why, it's three babies and a man! ... approximately

[Hook Dem]

Dems Fail in Ohio Electoral Vote Challenge
By Steve Roeder
Talon News
January 7, 2005

WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- A joint session of Congress resumed proceedings Thursday evening and quickly ratified President George W. Bush's November election victory after Democrats failed in their attempt to overturn the 20 electoral votes from Ohio which were won by Bush. Certification was halted for the majority of the afternoon when Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH) stopped the formal declaration process.

Boxer said on the Senate floor that she and Jones wanted to "shed some light" on issues of reported voting irregularities in Ohio and nationwide election reform. Lawmakers were forced to retreat to their separate chambers for two hours of debate and a vote on the challenge.

Earlier in the day, Boxer and Jones acknowledged at a news conference that they did not expect to overturn the results.

It was only the second such challenge since Rutherford B. Hayes won in 1876. In 2001, more than two-dozen Democrats objected to the certification of Florida's disputed election won by President Bush. However, since no senator also objected then, as is required to cause a recess of the joint session of Congress, the objection was ignored. Boxer said she regrets that she didn't object to the certification four years ago.

Debate in the House on Thursday was lively. In contrast, the Senate debate included only the two Republicans from Ohio: Sen. Mike DeWine and Sen. George V. Voinovich. The Democrats filled the remaining time with reasons why the voting system needs improvement.

The House voted 267 to 31 against the challenge, and the Senate voted 74 to 1. Boxer, the lone dissenter, still felt it was worth the effort.

"I think this is the first time in my life I ever voted alone in the United States Senate, and I have to tell you, I think it was the right thing to do," Boxer said.

Most Democrats concluded Bush was the rightful winner and said the move cast a needed spotlight on voting rights. Republicans called it a waste of time.

"This is a travesty," said Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), who forced a formal roll call vote in the Senate to spotlight lawmakers' positions. "[Democrats] are still not over the 2000 election, let alone the 2004 election."

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) characterized the Democrats' move as a "quadrennial crying wolf."

The challenge divided Democrats. Party leaders and many rank-and-file distanced themselves. Black and liberal lawmakers embraced it. Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), who lost the election to Bush, said in a letter sent to supporters Wednesday he would not take part in a formal protest of the Ohio Electors because, despite widespread reports of voting irregularities, his legal team had "found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election."

Kerry said he planned to introduce election-reform legislation and request congressional hearings on the voting irregularities.

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan also weighed in on the matter during his daily press briefing.

"I think the American people spoke very clearly on Election Day," McClellan said. "And the election is behind us. The American people now expect their leaders in Washington to focus on the big priorities facing this country, and to act on those priorities. It is time to move forward, and not engage in conspiracy theories or partisan politics of this nature."

Democratic officials in Ohio said that, while they desire improved election practices, they worry that the party was wasting time and money.

"There was a point where this served a purpose," said Susan Gwinn, chairwoman of the Athens County Democratic Party in Ohio. "But I think we passed that. We need to move on."

Likewise, Republicans from Ohio were not pleased by the Democrats' objection. Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-OH) called the procedural challenge an effort by "certain extreme elements of Sen. Kerry's own party" to mock an election that Kerry himself conceded. Challenges are "no more than another exercise in their party's primary goal to obstruct, to divide and destroy."

Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) concurred. Charges made about Ohio's election are "wild, incoherent and completely unsubstantiated," he said. On the Senate floor, Dewine added that he found it "almost impossible to believe" that the Senate was debating the matter when the official results showed that Bush won his state with more 118,000 votes.

[Yonivore]

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20050106/i/r3349095374.jpg
OH BROTHER!