ELECTION 2004 Ohio recount all but certain

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | November 15, 2004 | WorldNetDaily.com

[Jacob Kell]

Two third-party presidential candidates say they've raised enough money to file for an official recount of the vote in Ohio, which President Bush won on Nov. 2 and where some observers claim there were irregularities and fraud in the election.

Green Party candidate David Cobb announced today that the $113,600 needed to file for a recount had been raised, "with the vast majority in the $10-$50 range," said his media director, Blair Bobier. The fund-raising effort began on Thursday.

[Bigh4u2]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the totals have to be within <1% before an recount can be conducted?

Or can anyone involved just pay to do it?

[Publius]

This is two weeks old. Where have you been?

[Always Right]

I think WND has it wrong. I believe there were a couple of court rulings blocking recounts, so the certainty of recounts is far from a done deal. Besides, anything past December 12th is too late to be meaningful. Once we past the Deadline, even the US Supreme Court lacks the power to do anything about it.

[traderrob6]

This article is over 2 weeks old and is innacurate. They have raised the (deosit) they have to decide how much it is ultimately going to cost, probably somewhere close to 1.5 million

[Perdogg]

A contest to an election cannot occur until the SoS certifies the vote. That won't happen until Monday.

Automatic recounts occurs if the vote difference is 1/2 of one percent or less.

Recounts are done County to county and are not automatic.

Once Bush is certified it's over!

[sgtbono2002]

Why dont they give that money to the poor in Ohio's coal mining district, it would do more good there than stuffed into some bean counters pocket.

[js1138]

They might get a recount, but it is doomed. If they succeed in costing the state millions of dollars tilting at windmills, the law will be changed to require some chance that the outcome might be changed (in favor of the filing party).

[LasVegasMac]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the totals have to be within <1% before an recount can be conducted?

I read this awhile back, so I might be off....

If the % is < 0.25, then a recount is automatically triggered - by state law. But anyone can ask for a recount - if they can pay for it.

LVM

[yoe]

What part of "YOU LOST THE ELECTION FAIRLY" don't they understand?

[JLAGRAYFOX]

The election in Ohio is over. It was over the night of November 2nd, 2004. Anyone that believes other than that is smoking funny stuff (Are you listening, Keith Olbermann?). End of story!!! If the good folks of Ohio allow a recount to go forward, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn, NY, I'd like to sell them. They should rise up and throw all the foolish retards that have come into their state back to where they came from starting with that horse's behind, Jesse Jackson. What a buffoon!!!

[mondonico]

Is it time to start a 2004 edition of the SoreLoserman PR effort? Shouldn't Kerry be ridiculed for this latest flipflop (from his concession speech)?

[Bigh4u2]

Thanx!

[Perdogg]

Not necessarily. There was an article from Polipundit saying that just because you ask for a recount you will get one.

[ProudVet77]

I don't think that this is about winning this election. This is more about being able to spread BS about the voting in Ohio in about 2 or 3 years, when most of the population will have forgotten what really happened. Same way they claim that Gore really won FL in 2000.

[bill1952]

You are certainly right.

Any recount is meaningless now.
The Greens have lost their motion for an injunction & an early recount.
Consider: (This has been posted - see links at bottom.)

>By losing their motion for an injunction for equitable relief in the form of any early recount, the Libertarians and Greens in Ohio have effectively lost any chance of having a "recount" with any legal effect whatsoever. The 2000 case of Bush v. Gore, which effectively ended Gore's "recounts" and quest for the White House, was very clear on when recounts must be completed by to meet minimum Constitutional standards:
Note this SCOTUS decision overturning the Florida SC:

---

The Supreme Court of Florida has said that the legislature intended the State’s electors to “participat[e] fully in the federal electoral process,” as provided in 3 U.S.C. § 5. ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op. at 27); see also Palm Beach Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 2000 WL 1725434, *13 (Fla. 2000). That statute, in turn, requires that any controversy or contest that is designed to lead to a conclusive selection of electors be completed by December 12 [six days before the Electoral College meets]. That date is upon us, and there is no recount procedure in place under the State Supreme Court’s order that comports with minimal constitutional standards. Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet the December 12 date will be unconstitutional for the reasons we have discussed, we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering a recount to proceed.

As you can see, the selection of electors must be completed six days before the meeting of the Electoral College -- 12/7 this year. After that date, the slate of electors cannot be changed. Period.

That was why the Greens and Libertarians filed suit. When they lost, any chance of having a recount will legal effect was foreclosed.

Bush v. Gore shut down the left-wing shenanigans in 2000, and it will once again shut down the loony left in 2004.

Even if the official count if certified on Dec. 3, and even if the recount request is made on that very day, and even if it is considered, Ohio has five days to respond and start up the machinery of a recount. So, even after a timely request, Ohio wouldn't have to even start counting until Dec. 8 -- one day too late. And even if the unlikely happened and it started on Dec. 3, it takes Ohio almost two weeks, on the average, to complete such requests.

As such, you can all rest easy. None of this nonsense can alter the outcome of this election. It is impossible for Ohio to "recount" before the Constitutional deadline.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1287460/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1288719/posts?q=1&&page=51


Docha just love it when you realize that Al Gore's attempt to screw us in 2000 just got the Dems butt f***ked in front of the whole world?

Everyone should thank ole Al for being such a mean spirited, short sighted little megalomaniac!

Someone with an account at the DU should post a very indignant letter about how Gore helped Bush win again!! Hahaha. :)

[gop_gene]

I don't think that this is about winning this election. This is more about being able to spread BS about the voting in Ohio in about 2 or 3 years, when most of the population will have forgotten what really happened. Same way they claim that Gore really won FL in 2000.

Oh yeah, that worked out real well for them, didn't it? People were so angry after 4 long years, after a trivial tragedy like 9-11 and an insignificant event like the Iraq war, all that loomed in their mind was the election was STOLEN and nothing else mattered that Bush lost the popular vote resoundingly and got trounced in FL by Kerry (sarcasm).

These dems need to get real. This sideshow they're whipping up only is preaching to the choir. For everyone else, it will become a distant memory soon and they will vote on what's happening at the time and what's affecting them, not what some looney, partisan democrats say about a "stolen" election.

[1066AD]

Someone who got 24 (twenty-four) votes can demand a recount ? Crazy. Maybe if he foots the true cost but not otherwise.

[chimera]

I don't understand why these people don't just let this go. A 100,000+ vote margin isn't going to be overturned by any kind of recount, 'Rat dirty tricks and all. I can see it if it were a few hundred, or a few thousand difference. But this is just getting ridiculous. Time to call it a day and move to the next battle.

[annajones]

No can do. A judge denied their request for a recount.
See
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1287115/posts