Nader demands a recount

[Miss Modular]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041111/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_nader&cid=1506&ncid=1963&sid=96378801

Nader calls for US election recounts

Thu Nov 11,10:31 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Ralph Nader (news - web sites), an independent presidential candidate this year, has called for recounts of November 2 voting results saying that amid allegations of irregularities, he wanted to ensure that every ballot was counted.

Nader, who this year drew about one percent of the vote nationally, told a press conference Wednesday he was speaking out for the "thousands" of US voters asking for recounts and not on his own behalf.

"Over 2,000 citizens including voting rights advocates are urging in writing the Nader Camejo campaign to help make sure every vote is counted and counted accurately. The Nader Camejo campaign does not view the election to be over merely because concession speeches, which have no legal effect, have been given. Rather they are over when every vote is counted and legally certified," Nader said.

He urged recounts particularly in the hotly disputed states of Ohio and Florida, which went to Bush, New Hampshire which went to Kerry, and North Carolina, which went to Bush.

Nader highlighted irregularities including one reported earlier in an Ohio polling station where 638 voters cast ballots but results showed 4,258 voted for Bush, and 260 for Kerry.

"Striking inconsistencies exist between the vote as reported on the AccuVote Diebold Machines and exit polls and voting trends in New Hampshire. These irregularities in the reported vote count favor president George W. Bush by five to 15 percent over what was expected.

"Problems in these electronic voting machines and optical scanners are being reported in machines in a variety of states," Nader added.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

http://www.blackboxvoting.com/

[AChimp]

Nader highlighted irregularities including one reported earlier in an Ohio polling station where 638 voters cast ballots but results showed 4,258 voted for Bush, and 260 for Kerry.
And that single instance alone hasn't triggered a complete recount? :confused

Only in America. :lol

[ScruU2wice]

Nader highlighted irregularities including one reported earlier in an Ohio polling station where 638 voters cast ballots but results showed 4,258 voted for Bush, and 260 for Kerry.

I guess they have more, this just the least farfetchd one..

[sadie]

so you're saying you believe it to be untrue?

[Ronnie Raygun]

HAHAHA! Nadar is DEAD!!...or at least he might as well be...

He is in no position to make demands. He's a leftest kook who's been rejected by the American people on numerous occasions.

I'm glad he's in the news though, the extreme left that controls the left is moving away from the mainstream and pushing the more moderate wing of the party towards the republican party....

Keep it up guys!!!!

Go Hillary 2008!!

[KevinTheOmnivore]

50 million + Americans are not pushing away from the mainstream. Nader, although a good man who has worked very hard for the American people for years, does not entirely represent the other perpective in this country.

John Kerry did NOT lose because he was some kind of "left wing kook." You know this, but you play this game for the same reason that you try to demonize Howard Dean....you live in a dream land, and you're scared. John Kerry, who I'm certain you'd admit wasn't an amazing candidate, won more votes than any other presidential victor in history, with the exception of two men-- Reagan in '84, and W in '04. 3.5 million votes are what separated you from a popular loss. Considerably less votes are what separated you from an electoral college loss.

The Republicans most certainly won the battle, but the war ahead is loooong. There's a Democratic base unlike ever before, and nobody is thinking third parties right now (if you studied the history of the party system, you'd see this pattern a lot).

2006 will be fun.

[Ronnie Raygun]

"50 million + Americans are not pushing away from the mainstream." - Kevin

Whatever! The left has been losing power election after election after election while the right has gotten stronger and stronger... WHY?!? Because the democratic party has been take over by left wing zealots and wackos. Average Americans cannot relate to your shrills and it will be years before the American people can scrape of the stink put upon us by your depraved and immoral policies of race baiting, lying, theft and redistrobution of American hard earned money, spitting on soldiers, lying about American war crimes, wishing death upon our president and the support of our nations enemies...

It will at least be another 20 years before The United States will elect another liberal. And as soon as Bush's judges get through, we will truly control all three branches of govt. and THAT'S when you'll start seeing REAL change and reform that works in this country....and when that happens you may never see another democrat as president....

2006 will be fun....just look at the dem senators that are up for reelection.....How many of those seats do you think your going to win?

[glowbelly]

did you get all red-faced and start spitting while you were typing that?

if not, could you please videotape yourself reading that statement and make sure to get all red-faced and spitty? then post it here? please?

[sspadowsky]

Whatever! The left has been losing power election after election after election while the right has has been stealing power election after election after election... WHY?!? Because the seats of power hav been take over by right wing fundamentalist zealots and wackos. Average Americans cannot relate to billionaires and it will be years before the American people can scrape off the stink put upon us by their depraved and immoral policies of war profiteering, lying, theft and redistribution of American hard earned money into their own pockets, spitting on soldiers by praising them in public and then cutting their pay and benefits, lying about American war crimes, bestowing death upon our soldiers and the breeding of our nations enemies...

It will at least be another 20 years before The United States will elect another liberal. And as soon as Bush's judges get through, we will truly control all three branches of govt. and THAT'S when you'll start seeing REAL fascism and reform that runs this country into the ground....and when that happens you may never see another democrat anywhere in the country, because by that time their party will be outlawed....

2006 will be fun....just look at the dem senators that are up for reelection.....How many of those seats do you think the neo-cons will try to steal through illegal or unethical redistricting?

[Ronnie Raygun]

"Considerably less votes are what separated you from an electoral college loss." - Kevin

What you really want to say is that Bush doesn't have a mandate....Well, that MAY be questionable...I tend to think not. But if Bush doesn't than Clinton never did either which makes your point moot....

Dems have simply punched themselves out...

"and nobody is thinking third parties right now" - Kevin

Yes they are!!! Blacks are pissed about the election and they blame **GUESS WHO** the democratic party...Look into and you'll see.....

Also, you will soon see strains in the democratic party...those who want Dean to run the party and those who feel democrats must move to the right in order to swing moderate votes....If the party moves to the right, you'll see a third party arise once more on the extreme left....which means a loss in 2008...If you remain on the left, the same thing will happen in 2008 that happend this year...you lose....

Unfortunatley for you, you are fresh out of Bill Cintons...and it would probably take more than another Bill Clinton to win a national election for the dems...I would say that you'd need another JFK only he'd be a republican by today's standards.....

[Ant10708]

I dunno. I think Hilary could win for the Democrats. She is extremely popular with Democrats and I think she could get alot of people who just want to see a woman president to vote for her. But it really depends on her opponent and weather the Republican party can keep getting more support from Hispanics.

[ScruU2wice]

so you're saying you believe it to be untrue?

I think that the e-voting is complete shit, but I don't think that you can make up a margin like 2million votes.


Yes they are!!! Blacks are pissed about the election and they blame **GUESS WHO** the democratic party...Look into and you'll see.....

Leave it to the right winger to speak for the blacks with unfounded claims...

[KevinTheOmnivore]

"50 million + Americans are not pushing away from the mainstream." - Kevin

Whatever! The left has been losing power election after election after election while the right has gotten stronger and stronger... WHY?!? Because the democratic party has been take over by left wing zealots and wackos. Average Americans cannot relate to your shrills and it will be years before the American people can scrape of the stink put upon us by your depraved and immoral policies of race baiting, lying, theft and redistrobution of American hard earned money, spitting on soldiers, lying about American war crimes, wishing death upon our president and the support of our nations enemies...

Alot of the shit you said above was either wrong, or just plain silly. You are the very zealot that you claim to be opposed to. You think you seem to speak for "hard working Americans," which is nonsense. You accuse the Left of "race baiting," while it was in fact the Right that pushed social/race/sex issues into the political mainstream in the 1960s and 70s, NOT the Democrats. Your party also mobilized their "base" pushing ELEVEN gay marriage ban amendments in the states (the Dems used to do the same think in urban centers with temperance issues, it worked really well to mobilize the urban, Irish-Catholic base).

Just because you work at an airport and fancy yourself "straight blue collar," or whatever crap your profile said, doesn't mean you speak for real, hard working Americans. I think plenty of them went out and voted for Senator Kerry, too.

It will at least be another 20 years before The United States will elect another liberal. And as soon as Bush's judges get through, we will truly control all three branches of govt. and THAT'S when you'll start seeing REAL change and reform that works in this country....and when that happens you may never see another democrat as president....

You have no idea what you're tal;king about. You're not a conservative, you're not even a very good American. You're a cheerleader, and you're team just won the Super Bowl. You should give up the charade. You pretend to care about "hard working Americans," but all you care about is your party winning. You don't care that working families have seen their cost of living increase, while their real wages have declined. You don't care about healthcare, or prescription costs, or anything real working families are concerned about. You only know what the RNC/Limbaugh/Fox News bullet points tell you to know. You're a droid, and a pathetic one at that.

I'll say it one more time: Over FIFTY MILLION Americans thought that the "most liberal senator eve....blah blah" was a better choice than this president. The fact that a wartime president now serves over the most ideologically divided nation since 1860 says a LOT.

""Considerably less votes are what separated you from an electoral college loss." - Kevin

What you really want to say is that Bush doesn't have a mandate....Well, that MAY be questionable...I tend to think not. But if Bush doesn't than Clinton never did either which makes your point moot....

You are a moron. Clinton didn't have a mandate, and it's you who are the master of mootery. Clinton capitulated to 75% of the Gingrich agenda. Clinton compromised, and did what he needed to do in order to get shit done....that's not how FDR ran things, that's not how Reagan operated, either. Look at some of the REAL mandates, particularly during the New Deal. FDR bullied Congress like a dictator. That's NOT how Clinton operated, so I'd appreciate it if you'd stop digging for ways to insert the man into your already weak ass arguments.

"and nobody is thinking third parties right now" - Kevin

Yes they are!!! Blacks are pissed about the election and they blame **GUESS WHO** the democratic party...Look into and you'll see.....

There will be no third party push. Trust me on this. When the "out" party is weak and takes a defeat, they tend to realign together in order to beat the majority party. Our system has gone around and around this cycle forever, jeez, just pick up a fucking book!

There WILL however be a push to retool the DNC, which is fine. It's probably necessary. But there will be no "black party" or whatever the heck you're talking about here.....

Also, you will soon see strains in the democratic party...those who want Dean to run the party and those who feel democrats must move to the right in order to swing moderate votes....If the party moves to the right, you'll see a third party arise once more on the extreme left....which means a loss in 2008...If you remain on the left, the same thing will happen in 2008 that happend this year...you lose....

In a way, you're right. However, the Democrats have only expanded their base with this election. As i said, third party activity tends to be at its highest when it's the party in power that folks become unhappy with. Greens got bigger during Clinton, Perot got started during Bush I, and Libertarians keep getting bigger, cuz they're never entirely happy with anybody. Unlike 2000, this race has mobilized and re-organized a Democratic base unlike ever before. Montana, one of the "redest" states, now has a Democratic governor. The Democrats took two state legislatures, and overall, did MUCH better at the grassroots level than they did in 2002. New party voters were mobilized by partisan and non-partisan efforts alike. Believe me, as someone who hangs out in the often dysfunctional circles of the Left, this Party is bigger and more resolute in purpose than it has been in well over a decade. They now need a clearer message, and some direction.

Furthermore, this victory could be potentially bad for the GOP. Those "strains" you mentioned will arise in two or more years, when talk of who will run in 2008 comes up. Folks like Karl Rove will want to stay in the ballgame, and undoubtedly they'll push to run some neo-con hack that will make you blush and cheer. But then you might see a real conservative, perhaps a John McCain, step up for the spot. Like I said, in-fighting and third party activity often come when one (or both) of the major parties simply lose message and get wrapped up in winning, taking power, and maintaing that power. This is the state of the modern GOP. Look for more third party growth from the Libertarians, too. On paper anyway, they are already the largest third party in the country. The Constitution Party continues to grow in certain states as well. The strain may come from the Right when real conservatives begin to get tired of Politburro Republicanism.

Unfortunatley for you, you are fresh out of Bill Cintons...and it would probably take more than another Bill Clinton to win a national election for the dems...I would say that you'd need another JFK only he'd be a republican by today's standards.....

Sometimes ignorance doesn't even deserve a response (see above comment about books).

[KevinTheOmnivore]

.....it's also worth noting that you're assumptions on why Bush won, because he's somehow more "in touch" with the "mainstream," are just flat wrong. Most polling shows folks went out and voted overwhelmingly along party lines, with self-proclaimed "moderates" swinging towards Kerry. The GOP did a better job of getting out their base, but please Ronnie, don't have any cracked ideas about this being some "middle American mandadte" or whatever for Bush. This was good old fashioned GOTV, and the GOP are better at it (I'll admit it!).

According to the Cook Political Report, "85 percent of liberals voted for Kerry, 84 percent of conservatives voted for Bush, and moderates went for Kerry by nine points, conservatives outnumbered liberals, 34 percent to 21 percent, making the difference."

The link to the full article is here: http://www.cookpolitical.com/column/2004/110904.php

It's actually quite favorable and congratulatory towards the Bush campaign.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Bump!

[Abcdxxxx]

Now I'm not the best at this funny new math you kids do, but even in that case example of the 600 and some odd votes, Kerry got less then a majority win according to their estimate. Put aside the Presidency, and just look at how the nation voted on other candidates and issues, and things should be pretty clear where the countries head is at.

Let's face it, Kerry wasn't a great candidate which is why one of the biggest advocacy campaigns was "Anybody but Bush".... not a real endorsement of kerry now is it? Years from now, we'll view "Anybody but Bush" as being far more damaging then Nader ever was. The left took such a bombastic approach to spreading their message that they ended up setting their cause back at least ten years, maybe more. It's just like the gay weddings issue. You can't force it under the books... if you believe it should be legal.do it right, and ammend the laws properly because if you don't, the Right will. So now because two mayors in progressive States acted as civil dissobediants when they damn well knew it would get over turned, being Gay in Kentucky got a whole lot less comfortable.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Now I'm not the best at this funny new math you kids do, but even in that case example of the 600 and some odd votes, Kerry got less then a majority win according to their estimate. Put aside the Presidency, and just look at how the nation voted on other candidates and issues, and things should be pretty clear where the countries head is at.

I'm not so sure what it is that you're refering to. 600 votes? Wha?

As far as "how the nation voted," a lot of that is complicated and circumstantial. If you're talking about the gay marriage amendments, well, frankly, Americans don't want it. But as David Brooks pointed out in his recent column, most of America seems to have a pretty broad perspective on that issue. Most folks, at least according to polling data, seem okay with civil unions.

Otherwise, Senate/House seats that went "red" tended to be in places that should be "red." Like Charlie Cook points out in his analysis, a lot of this has to do with the realignment of the South, so this isn't necessarily a blow to the Democrats in 2004, but it's one they should've more so seen coming a few years back.

Let's face it, Kerry wasn't a great candidate which is why one of the biggest advocacy campaigns was "Anybody but Bush".... not a real endorsement of kerry now is it? Years from now, we'll view "Anybody but Bush" as being far more damaging then Nader ever was.

I tend to agree with you....sort of. Kerry belongs in Congress. You can't really run for president with a 20+ years voting record. Senators rarely get elected president, and Kerry only proved that to be true.

However, with that said, I think it's important to point out again that despite Kerry's short-comings, despite the fact that his campaign shifted gears too often, despite the fact that he was "ABB," he STILL received a shit load of votes. The GOP's attempt to turn this in to Nixon/McGovern is cute, but it's also waaaay off. Over 50 million Americans, nearly half of the electorate, voted for the guy who simply wasn't George W. Bush. A mandate that does not make.....

The left took such a bombastic approach to spreading their message that they ended up setting their cause back at least ten years, maybe more. It's just like the gay weddings issue. You can't force it under the books... if you believe it should be legal.do it right, and ammend the laws properly because if you don't, the Right will. So now because two mayors in progressive States acted as civil dissobediants when they damn well knew it would get over turned, being Gay in Kentucky got a whole lot less comfortable.

Eh, I understand why they did what they did, but if they want to compare themselves to the abolitionists or to civil rights activists, they certainly took the William Lloyd Garrison and the Malcolm X (respectively) approach, which isn't necessarily fruitful.

And I doubt it was ever very comfortable being gay in Kentucky. :)

[AChimp]

Now I'm not the best at this funny new math you kids do, but even in that case example of the 600 and some odd votes, Kerry got less then a majority win according to their estimate. Put aside the Presidency, and just look at how the nation voted on other candidates and issues, and things should be pretty clear where the countries head is at.
You're missing the point. Whether a recount changes the outcome is irrelevant. It's the fact that no one gives a shit about recounting in places where there's glaring inaccuracies.

Only in America. :lol

[Abcdxxxx]

They claim 638 votes were cast.
260 for Kerry.
that leaves 378 votes that didn't go to Kerry.

These are the numbers being used as supposed evidence that a recount would effect the outcome. That's shabby logic when we know the REAL reason a recount would effect the outcome is because our systems screwy and if you counted the ballots 20 times, you'd get 20 different totals.


Being okay with civil unions, doesn't reflect on how people want that "being okay" to be proctored. 11 States do not speak for the nation.... but a Senate majority, and various others bills help it a bit. I think a lot of fairly liberal people cast some very conservative votes this year, and they did so intentionally. By and large, the perception is that our nation took a very Conservative turn this month is a bit misleading anyway.

I'm not arguing that Bush has a mandate or not, because it apparently doesn't ultimately matter, but I do think it's foolish to argue that just because Kerry also got a shitload of votes, in an election where a shitload of votes were cast anyway(for a change) can be considered evidence of much. I think a lot of people ended up voting ABK. Anybody but Kerry. The Democrats have all gone on record saying there was no mathematical way to win. Not that I trust them, but most of the articles claiming Kerry should have won, or could have seem to be a little illogical in places.

[AChimp]

RTFA, ABCD.

Nader highlighted irregularities including one reported earlier in an Ohio polling station where 638 voters cast ballots but results showed 4,258 voted for Bush, and 260 for Kerry.

4200 is a lot bigger than 378.

[FS]

I think what abcd means is that even if they threw away all the non-existent votes, Kerry still wouldn't have enough to make a majority.

However, if 7 times the amount of actual voters went to one party, then it wouldn't be too farfetched to look into whether some votes didn't go to the wrong person as well.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I'm not arguing that Bush has a mandate or not, because it apparently doesn't ultimately matter, but I do think it's foolish to argue that just because Kerry also got a shitload of votes, in an election where a shitload of votes were cast anyway(for a change) can be considered evidence of much.

I think it remains relevant when discussing the amount of voters who turned out. It also seems that this time around (for obvious reasons), Bush supporters want to talk a lot about the popular vote. I don't think it's fair to say that over 50 million Americans simply closed their eyes and voted for the guy who wasn't Bush. I know plenty of them did, but I think it's certainly more complicated than that.

Again, I think Kerry speaks in Senate garble that never translated very well amongst the public. But the man wasn't a terrible candidate, and his performance supports that. He lost, yes. But once again, this was no landslide, no mandate, and my only concern is that the GOP will take a close victory and turn it into an excuse to go carte blanche.

I think a lot of people ended up voting ABK. Anybody but Kerry. The Democrats have all gone on record saying there was no mathematical way to win. Not that I trust them, but most of the articles claiming Kerry should have won, or could have seem to be a little illogical in places.

Well, clearly he could've won. Clearly he could've done things about his campaign better. Again, I think the man lost, but it was close, and when 3.5 million Americans (roughly the total number of votes accumulated by Nader in 2000) is the only divide between you and popular victory, you need to question what you could've or should've done to improve yourself.

Also, I don't know that it was necessarily a vote against Kerry, but in many ways, it may have been ABABB. Figure that one out!

[Anonymous]

Truthout, but shut up, it's actually just reporting something.

Recount in Ohio a Sure Thing
t r u t h o u t | Press Release

Monday 15 November 2004

Green Party Campaign Raises $150,000 in 4 Days, Shifts Gears to Phase II

WASHINGTON -- November 15 -- There will be a recount of the presidential vote in Ohio.

On Thursday, David Cobb, the Green Party’s 2004 presidential candidate, announced his intention to seek a recount of the vote in Ohio. Since the required fee for a statewide recount is $113,600, the only question was whether that money could be raised in time to meet the filing deadline. That question has been answered.

“Thanks to the thousands of people who have contributed to this effort, we can say with certainty that there will be a recount in Ohio,” said Blair Bobier, Media Director for the Cobb-LaMarche campaign.

“The grassroots support for the recount has been astounding. The donations have come in fast and furiously, with the vast majority in the $10-$50 range, allowing us to meet our goal for the first phase of the recount effort in only four days,” said Bobier.

Bobier said the campaign is still raising money for the next phase of the recount effort which will be recruiting, training and mobilizing volunteers to monitor the actual recount.

The Ohio presidential election was marred by numerous press and independent reports of mis-marked and discarded ballots, problems with electronic voting machines and the targeted disenfranchisement of African American voters. A number of citizens’ groups and voting rights organizations are holding the second of two hearings today in Columbus, Ohio, to take testimony from voters, poll watchers and election experts about problems with the Ohio vote. The hearing, from 6-9 p.m., will be held at the Courthouse, meeting room A, 373 S. High St., in Columbus. The Cobb-LaMarche campaign will be represented at the hearing by campaign manager Lynne Serpe.

A demand for a recount in Ohio can only be filed by a presidential candidate who was either a certified write-in candidate or on the ballot in that state. Both Green Party candidate David Cobb and Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik will be demanding a recount. No other candidate has stated an intention to seek a recount and no other citizen or organization would have legal standing to do so in Ohio. The Cobb-LaMarche campaign is still exploring the possibility of seeking recounts in other states but no decision has been made yet.

---

More liberal unamerican propaganda here (http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/111404Z.shtml).