August 14th, 2006 by Atomictumor
Well, it came and went, and now its coming again.
Judical candidate David Stuart, along with two commish candidates, all hoping to unseat incumbents (in the land of the perpetual incumbent) are throwing down lawsuits against the election commishion.
Now, I came down pretty harshly on ol’ Dave in a previous post, and got jumped by everybody and their brother in the comments section, but I still feel that an election, much like a marriage, is a line in the sand. Now, I’ll be the first to say that that’s principle talking, and not reality. In real life, marriages don’t work out, and elections don’t run smoothly. A lot of people are coming saying they felt disenfranchised by this last voting run, and the fact that there were hour plus long lines in an election where far less than half the citizens voted, well, thats not too cool.
So, yes, lets hang the election commission for as much as they deserve for not having things on the ball. Apparently the fancy new electronic voting system that Tennessee mandated is taking too long. True, it took me several minutes to write in A. Tom Ictuma on all of the campaign slots that I felt necessary, but thats the way it is. We’ve moved past the days of being able to work on paper, and we have to man up to this uncertain electronic age that we’re entering.
Again, I digress.
The thing is, I’d love to see Stuart win, so I’ll be backing him, again. I don’t have a pony in the district commish races, but those seem more justifed due to the tiny vote margin. My beef with the situation, is if each election has to be decided in courts, what does that say about our electoral system? Sure, we can bitch all day about the Presidential election system, and how using electoral votes as a sort of proxy is idiotic and archaic, but when we’re talking about our local stuff, our neighbors, its a different story.
I’d like to think we can run our own elections down this way without judicial oversight.
Now, everybody jump in and yell at me.
August 14th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
Okay AT, you must not have been listening that infamous day that you “got jumped by everybody and their brother.†This election will not “be decided in courts†ole buddy. If Mr. Stuart et al are successful in their suits, then WE THE VOTERS will go to the polls and re-vote. No judge will decide the election.
“I’d like to think we can run our own elections down this way without judicial oversight.â€
I’d like people to send me large checks that I don’t have to spend time earning too, but that ain’t reality either. Judicial oversight, (in this case) is a good thing. It means that we have laws that govern the way we do things in this country like elect people to represent us in government.
“My beef with the situation, is if each election has to be decided in courts, what does that say about our electoral system?â€
Each election doesn’t AT. Some might need to be reviewed in a court now and then, but our “elections†are not being decided in the courts. That’s just hyperventilation.
Your turn to jump.
August 14th, 2006 at 2:21 pm
Can’t argue with you man. Like I said, my position is principled, which is the hardest kind to defend. Does it seem to you that a large part of the recent elections have seen the people who didn’t win the thing jumping into court? Is that the automatic second step?
Maybe, maybe not. I’d say “your mileage may vary”, but I hate that phrase.
August 14th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
Dont’ get me wrong AT. I agree with your “principled position.” In general I don’t think most elections should be challenged in the courts. I just like the idea that our system of government is strong enough to handle this kind of a problem without anyone finding the need to arm themselves.
Being specific, if Mr. Stuart honestly believes that there were people that didn’t vote because voting laws were broken, he is obligated to challenge the result of the election. He is responding in a principled way IMHO.
No, filing suit shouldn’t be an automatic second step after an election. It should be am uncommon occurance, but it is legal. Short of changing the law all we can do is bitch.
August 14th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Correct me if I’m wrong, AT (and I know you will) but I think that you’re not necessarily upset that this particular election is going before a judge, but that this might become the norm. That anyone running in an election who loses will go whining about how it wasn’t fair, yadda yadda yadda. There needs to be some process in place to make sure that doesn’t happen.
August 14th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
Unless the current law is changed…good luck with that.
August 14th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
There does seem to be a disturbing pattern: the presidential election in 2000, the 7th District Commission race in 2002, the Ophelia Ford special election in Memphis last year (which was overturned for dead people and felons voting), and now, this.
I don’t like do-overs, but I like uncertainty in the security of voting even less. Without the option for legal challenges, there would be nothing to prevent cheating, sculduggery, or outright incompetence from subverting the best-working democratic process in the world.
August 14th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
Thank NM, for bringing that up. Perhaps that what I have been trying in a less than articulate way to bring up.
Yes, its a good thing the legal recourse is there, damn, sucks that its being used so often.
August 14th, 2006 at 7:07 pm
I’m with you guys….that sculduggery should be nipped in the bud.
August 16th, 2006 at 2:06 am
Stupid is as stupid does, whoever thought these machines would prevent voting mishaps was wrong. That is why judges have to put an end to the sculduggery. All elected officials are at risk when we vote, and all voters do count at times, look at the Shuey vs. Lee vote.