Earlier this week the Tennessee State Senate ousted newly elected member Ophelia Ford because of election irregularities
[An investigating committee] found that 12 votes were not valid because the voters were either dead, felons or residents of other districts. Ford won the September election by 13 votes.If only Judge Earring had approached his task with as much common sense.
...
The report concluded that "illegalities so permeated the conduct of this extraordinarily close special election as to render … its results incurably uncertain and untrustworthy."
hat tip: J.A.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 21, 2006 09:15 AM | Email ThisMoonbats like Goldstein view their progressive entitlement mentality as birthright. Once he migrated here, Goldstein knew he had found his Moonbat brethren.
Vote fraud is welcome here by most leaders. Look at how vigrously they all defended the Larry Phillips ballots in 2004. And everyone from Reed to Maleng that could even examine the problem knows that they are barely tolerated by the Moonbat establishment and only keep their jobs for their willingness to look the other way.
You know we can't make fun of judge Bridges...hell, we hand-picked him in a republican dominated county so that the truth would come out.
Just because you don't like the truth, you can't just go around making fun of everyone associated with a decision you don't like.
That type of mentality will make you look like a childish buffoon...and we wouldn't want that!
Contrast this with the compassionate folks that inhabit Freemont, or even metropolitan Seattle for that matter. They either know, or should know the legacy of Lenin, yet they tolerate a shrine to him and what he stood for in their public square. This alone speaks to the sincerity of their ‘compassion’ that they wear about on their sleeves as a badge of honor.
Unfortunately that average American no longer has what it takes to look at this situation and analyze it for him or herself. The fact that they are not exposed to the horrors of the former Soviet Union by the Lenin and Stalin’s apologists, who by the way make up the majority of teachers in public (and Jesuit) middle and high schools doesn’t help this situation any.
Yes, that is a very sad statement on status of democracy in WA State. Of course, cheating ourselves of our own democracy isn't going to do much to change anything at the national level. And, if one wants to make a point one can be proud of, it would seem that demonstrating that our state protects the democratic process would be the thing to do.
But, no, silly Seattle "progressives" (e.g., control freaks) would prefer to shoot themselves in the foot.
Posted by: BananaLand on April 21, 2006 11:52 AMLink is to where I got the idea - a British conservative.
Posted by: A Watchdog on April 21, 2006 12:09 PMThis is a reasonable legal standard. Note that it is very different from the law in Washington state, which defines more stringent standards for disputed votes. It sounds like your quarrel is with the law, not with Judge Bridges. We wouldn't want judges legislating from the bench, would we?
Posted by: Bruce on April 21, 2006 04:42 PMNo, that's what democraps do.
Of course, that isn't what anyone on the right side of this issue wanted anyway.
Bridges could have just as easily ruled that, because the outcome of the race couln't be reasonable decided, it needed to be set aside and a revote occur. That would have been a decision within his purview and I'm bett!ng that the WSSC wouldn't have overruled him.
So what?
As you lefty morons say, "move on"!
We just want to move on with equitable elections.
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 21, 2006 05:21 PMTo reduce the margin of error, simply subtract the majority of felons' votes from Rossi's total, just as the evidence suggests. Voila, Gregoire has won a clear victory. After the GOP spent millions of dollars to obtain that result, you could at least use it.
(It's off thread, but the small-business owners of Fremont erected the statue of their nemesis to mock his failed ideology, and ol' Vlad routinely gets abused by the locals. The aetheist gets decorated with lights at the Holiday season, and the married despot appears tarted up in drag for Gay Pride. Symbolic abuse is the worst we can do to him now, and so we do it with gusto.)
That's because you're not too bright.
What I can't figure is why you haven't "moved on" like the rest of us.
Fraudoire is a sham and about as corrupt as they come, but I recognize that she is (for the moment) our sitting Governor (much to our everlasting shame).
You can continue to dance around the core of the problem that caused the election upset - vote fraud and incompetence. It is what precipitated the challenge to the 2004 election and it remains today. You stand there and stupidly claim "Dismissed with prejudice" all day, but that doesn't change the fact that there were 1100 more votes than voters, and as a consequence fraudoire (and her toilet-drinker supporters like paddy-cakes) can never claim a legitimate election.
That Bridges didn't have the courage to do the right thing and vacate the election is a shame, but there it is. He could have just as easily done it, and been within his right to do so. It would have been expensive and intrusive, but it would have set a message that says: "The citizens of this state demand clean, fair elections".
His failure sends the opposite message. We're trying to change that, and you're standing in the way.
Hope you don't get run over (not)
To this, I can agree (in principle).
So lets dump that miserable loser POS Lenin and replace it with a statue of the one who brought us victory in the Cold War - Ronald Reagan!
(Can't you just picture the response from Moonbat Central?!)
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 22, 2006 09:20 AMWashington judge refuses to vacate an election after admitting prosecution proved 1,600 illegal votes (race seperated by less than 150 votes).
G Jiggy...I have known several people/families to leave Washington in the past year...because of the corruption.
Makes me feel special.
Posted by: dl on April 22, 2006 11:18 PMBy contrast, the plaintiffs Borders et. al. faced a much higher standard, set in the laws of our state, which Judge Bridges could not modify. Even if he had accepted every last one of the plaintiffs' claims, and rejected all of the intervenors' evidence, the court would have found only that a statistical inference suggested that Chris Gregoire had received fewer votes than had Dino Rossi. The plaintiffs would have proven nothing, even if their statistical model had been valid, and not the complete fallacy that it was. They would have still been a very long way from satisfying the requirements of our state's laws. Hence, Judge Bridges called the plaintiffs' request of him by an aptly descriptive term :"judicial activism".
Which is exactly what the original post yearned for, yet again.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on April 23, 2006 12:38 PMWhy do you criticize other states that demand and enforce fair and legal elections? Afraid that the same will be demanded in Washington? Maybe you should censor the media so that stories of illegal elections being vacated can be banned...
Posted by: dl on April 24, 2006 08:28 AM"There are multiple violations of local, state, and federal election laws."
Evidence to support that very point was desperately needed about a year ago, and, as we all know, absolutely none of it appeared in the relevant courtroom. If you have any such material, by all means please produce it. (If you've had it since January 2005, you might wish to explain to Ms. Tebelius, Mr. Foreman, and Mr. Borders et. al. why you did not give it to them back then.)
Posted by: Paddy Mac on April 24, 2006 10:02 PMNot surprising. He/she/it tries so hard to be relevant, and fails miserably each and every time. Whatta tool...
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 25, 2006 11:35 AMMr. Rossi claimed victory by 261-- no, 42-- votes. Thank you for confirming the illegitimacy of his claim. Good to see that you agree with Judge Bridges, after all!
Either that statement is right, or it is wrong. If it is correct, then Mr. Rossi (all together, now!) "can never claim a legitimate election." If it is wrong-- as a Republican Secretary of State and a Republican Judge in a Republican county both agree-- then Gov. Gregoire may have a legitimate claim to her office.
This reminds me of the original lawsuit. Even if we had granted every last claim that the plaintiffs made, they would still have come nowhere close to satisfying the requirements of our laws.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on April 27, 2006 11:27 PMWith regards to the topic at hand, it matters not what formed the basis of Rossi's court claim - as you point out, the court rejected his claim. What remains is irrefutable - there was massive vote fraud/corruption and as a result the election was damaged beyond an intelligent determination.
The proper response was to invalidate the contest and do it over.
Judge Bridges said that, although he recognized the mess that had occurred, he did not have the appropriate authority to grant the relief that the Republicans asked for.
What remains is a legal determination to award the contest to fraudoire based on defective data, corrupt administrative manipulation, and woefully inadequate statutory law. You like it because (this time) it favors your position. Bully for you.
While I would have preferred Rossi to prevail, what I want more than that is a proper, legitimate election. It didn't happen last time, and unless dipshiites like you are hounded away from the fire, it is slated to happen again and again.
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 28, 2006 12:26 PMJudge Bridges explicitly stated that the plaintiffs had not introduced any of evidence of fraud. He also stated that they had not produced evidence sufficient to justify his negating the election. He explained the errors made in King County as innocent of criminal intent. He described the plaintffs' logic as a fallacy. He completely and unequivocally rejected every claim that they made. And yet, SoundPolitics and its commenters still pretend that he said something else. Perhaps the Cult of Rossi's Victory should apply to the I.R.S. for status as a religion, since their beliefs have nothing to do with fact.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on April 28, 2006 11:00 PM