Comments on: Dave, Don’t Do It!!!!

By: Mrs. Eaves

Mrs. Eaves — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 20:56:26 +0000

I dunno. It was a very close race, and the long lines in some precincts may have had an impact on results. Who knows?
I doubt, however, that Lantrip could have defeated Stuart. That would require some major write-in action.

By: GoldenAppleCorp

GoldenAppleCorp — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 21:36:52 +0000

The way I see it, contesting the votes is only going to make Stuart looky whiny, in the same way that Gore looked whiny in the 2000 elections. Sure, Gore probably was right, but after the whole thing was dragged out over months of crap, all anyone wanted was for Gore to stfu. If Stuart contests the vote and drags things out, I think he’s ruining his chances of winning an election in the future.

By: AT

AT — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 21:37:54 +0000

I doubt, however, that Lantrip could have defeated Stuart

Eaves, do you think the results should be contested? I think Lantrip probably won fair and square.

By: Mrs. Eaves

Mrs. Eaves — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 21:42:09 +0000

I was referring to your poster, not the actual election.

By: AT

AT — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 21:52:56 +0000

Ah… right…

By: daco

daco — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 23:27:03 +0000

While I would like to agree with you AT….I can’t. I appears that there may very well have been circumstances on election day that prevented Mr. Stuart from winning.

Go Dave Go. File suit, force a re-vote in november and kick Layton’s ass.

By: Bosphorus

Bosphorus — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 23:41:06 +0000

Yeah, I think w/ close results like this one, or in the 7th disctrict where lee and shuey are concerned, a candidate should force a recount. If only to settle the issue and reinforce the initial results.

As far as him ruining his future chances because of whining… who cares, if he wins the recount. If he stoically forgoes the recount, then he’s definitely ruining his chances to win the election now.

I say fight for the office.

By: daco

daco — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 00:01:20 +0000

Damn straight Bos. AT is such a civilized wuss…no pink rubber hammer…no understanding of fighting for what is right…

By: AT

AT — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 00:03:56 +0000

So nobody here thought Gore screwed himself over?
Look, this is what I think. I think actions like these render the electoral system unnecessary. If no election counts, why bother having them? Lets elect our officials through the courts. I understand its the good fight, but for the wrong reasons.
Nobody here had problems voting. Lines long? Sorry. If you go home, you didn’t vote, and you’re a half citizen. Its not like they didn’t have early voting for a friggin month.

By: Mrs. Eaves

Mrs. Eaves — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 00:27:02 +0000

AT, are there any instances where you would find it appropriate for a candidate to challenge the results in court?
Of course elections count, which is why it’s so important to make absolutely sure of the results.

By: daco

daco — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 00:34:34 +0000

Of course, elections count AT.
Not only do elections count, but election laws count as well. If there are legitimate reasons, legal reasons why David Stuart should question the results of this election, he would only be half a candidate if he didn’t see it through.

By: The Bosphorus

The Bosphorus — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 00:55:29 +0000

Contesting an election is not doing anything to subvert the electoral system. I’d say it reinforces the importance of this election by demanding that clear cut winner is produced. I don’t see how you can say that by contesting one race you’re thereby calling into question all races

What on earth do you mean by half citizen?? Come on AT. That sounds an awful lot like “might makes right.” I can think of several legitimate reasons why somebody might have to step out of a voting line. I can also see how a candidate might rig an election by having people slow down the lines.

By: Netmom

Netmom — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 01:01:55 +0000

And remember, this isn’t about a recount — it’s about a re-vote, as some people were not able to wait out the 2-3 hour lines on a day with a heat index over 100.

Most of the time, I’d line up with AT on this one and let the chips fall where they may. However, I heard from an election volunteer last night that at one Oak Ridge precinct, half of the people who showed up to vote ended up leaving before getting to the end of the line. One guy left after 2 hours because his oxygen tank was running out — he didn’t have a lot of choice.

Indisputably, some voters were disenfranchised. Now, was it the fault of people taking too long, or that the county should have provided more funding to buy more machines and more poll workers? The latter seems like the more equitable solution, because removing voters would seemingly infringe on their rights as well.

And, from looking at the returns, I know that at least two of the precincts that had problems were those that Stuart was expected to win pretty big.

It’s his call, but I’ll support him either way.

By: daco

daco — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 01:49:43 +0000

What say you now AT? Change your mind yet?

Do it Dave, do it!

By: AT

AT — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 09:43:43 +0000

I find this facinating, and proof that everybody in the world is wrong except for me.
But whats even better, is that we’re all taking our positions for the “right reasons”. I doubt I’ll be able to tempt anybody into my way of thinking, but I’ll still play devils advocate.
Everybody, if the tables were turned, Stuart won over Layton by a hundred or so votes, would we be having this discussion? I mean, Layton may well sue, and that’d piss me off into writing a post, but do you think so many people would be jumping down my throat?
Daco, NM, did you do it in 2000? 2004 in Ohio? Voters appeared disenfranchised as hell in Ohio and Florida, but back then I believe the Republican party line was that Gore/Kerry are crybabies.
Bos, what I mean by half citizen is somebody who doesn’t vote. Lines 3 hours long? Come back later. The day is long, and yes, its a pain in the ass, but if you’re going to be a participitating citizen in this republic, then thats what you do. Wheres all the people talking about risking their lives to vote?
Do I support 3 hour long lines? No. It sucks, and people on the election commission should hang. There needs to be some incredible changes in the process, and maybe we should find ourselves having that conversation instead.
But thats the ballgame, unless they are allegations that lines were manipulated TO AN END. If it were JUST the lines that affected Stuart, and it appears targed to nail the Stuart vote, then he has a case. Theres no malice here. Nobody tried to deny Stuart (or anybody else) a vote, as what was allegated in 2000.
What if it stormed on voting day? Should we do a retry?

I’m with you all, I’d like to see Stuart win, but he didn’t. It sucks, yes, but we can’t trump the system to get more favorable results.

By: The Bosphorus

The Bosphorus — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 11:16:27 +0000

You assume I’m talking about this for the “right reasons”, or reasons that are a partial and self-serving. I disagree and for the same reasons I’ve already stated in other comments.

The crybaby argument is playground reasoning that a bully uses when he’s got you in a headlock. The Republicans won that election and were fighting to hold onto it, so they resorted to shaming and namecalling Gore. That’s great. This is exactly the reason a candidate should not forego a recount or revote out of fear of being labeled a whiner.

I disagree with you on this one, AT, because you say it’s trumping the system. It isn’t. It’s one candidate taking advantage of all legal recourse to determine the election. That’s part of the electoral system.

By: Atomictumor

Atomictumor — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 11:25:49 +0000

Bos, you’re addressing the points that you want to address, and thats OK by me.
What went wrong in this election? Lines? Again, I ask, what of the storm? Would a recount be appropriate?
Legal recourse in elections should be used when cheating is suspected, not as a fallback in case you lose.

Â Itâ€™s one candidate taking advantage of all legal recourse to determine the election. Thatâ€™s part of the electoral system.
Its not.Â Its the legal system.Â Thats the problem here, courts shouldn’t decide our politicians.

By: daco

daco — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 11:45:27 +0000

AT you have nothing to worry about. If the Chancery court agrees with you then there were no problems on election day. If the court disagrees with you then there were problems that the court feels need to be corrected by a re-vote.

I agree with Bos, this is not trumping the system. Neither was the system trumped in 2000 or 2004. People call names, for political reasons, all the time, so what. I doubt that the supremes took that into account in 2000 and I doubt if Lantrip will take it into account if Stuart files suit.

“Thats the problem here, courts shouldnâ€™t decide our politicians.”
Once again, you have nothing to worry about. Either way the court rules, the voters will have spoken. The court will not make a decision about who will be the next sessions judge.

By: Atomictumor

Atomictumor — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 11:50:40 +0000

I think whats happening is that we see this from two totally differing viewpoints, and neither side is getting through to the other.
C’est la vie.
I wish him well in the court system, I think its a shame that its getting to this point. I also certainly hope that we take a really good look at the electoral system in Anderson County to find out why it came to this point, and what we need to do to correct it.
Furthermore, you are all wrong. So sayeth me.

By: daco

daco — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:25:32 +0000

LOL.
You had me up until that last line..
What the hell AT you are obviously so much smarter than I am, I should probably conceed any future disagreements in their inception.

Heh. Like that’s gonna happen.

By: GoldenAppleCorp

GoldenAppleCorp — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:31:36 +0000

Did all of the voting precincts have long lines, or was it just a few choice ones? What can be done in future elections to ensure that people aren’t having to wait in lines 2 hours long? Will people think ahead and do early voting, or will they wait till the last minute again, like they do every year, just to bitch about how backwards the system is and what a pain in the ass voting is? What avenues can be taken to ensure as many people as possible get to the polls?
If voter turn out in the future is closer to 100% than the 20% or so that it is now, what the hell are the voting precincts going to do to handle that many people?

By: Atomictumor

Atomictumor — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:32:24 +0000

My problem with debating points like this, as Bos and I were discussing over beers a few weeks ago, is that I often see both points of something. When I muster up these posts, I work myself up over it to get that AT fire that we all expect.
I think its an illness in our judicial system that more and more elections are being decided in court. Thats the long term problem. In the short term, boot Layton.
However, I’m too stubborn to conceed the point. Mark my words, hear me now, listen to me later, and think about it soon, electoral resolutions through judicial processes will be a downfall of our country.

By: Atomictumor

Atomictumor — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:33:46 +0000

Good question, GAC. Thats what I’d like to hear. I still don’t understand the push to electronic voting. How is it an asset?