CDR: re: Imagine

[auto105391 at hushmail.com]

I guess you realize this is satire, but lets be accurate!

1. W won't actually be declared the winner until January 6th.  Until then,
 he is therefore self-declared.

2. That's democracy as in "the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class 
distinctions or privilege," and having some say in how the republic is governed. 
  The Electoral College was in part created to safeguard the powers of the 
smaller colonies.  If America hadn't already been parceled up into colonies,
 it is doubtful that they would have come up with the Electoral College.

3. The "fact" that votes were not counted previously (when there was a clear 
winner)  is not germain (what do the damn Germans have to do with this?) 
to the question of who in this case received the most votes.  The number 
of ballots needed to say this is disputed is a small fraction of those 1% 
of ballots that a machine could not read.  These are ballots that a republican 
"mob"  are attempting to reject from the count.  So basically, you're saying 
that people who most likely vote republican but can't follow instructions 
should be counted, but people who most likely vote democrat but can't follow 
instructions should not?

4. One would think that the appropriate credentials for designing a ballot 
would be human factors training, not party affiliation.  It was probably 
crystal clear to them what the ballot said.  I'm sure math teachers can 
read each others tests, but that doesn't really address whether the test 
is fair for the students.  Again, past results which were not scrutinized 
hardly constitute a valid argument as to the effectiveness of the ballot. 
 Remembering which hole you punched is not related to how you decided which 
hole to punch.  

5. Is it not true that minorities turned out in record numbers and most 
of them voted democrat?  If all else fails, call them a commie!  Do the 
words "ad hominem" come to mind?

6. Are you saying the state police are commies?

7. Again the original statement is true.  The margin of victory was less 
than the margin of error.  And yet someone declared themself the winner. 
 Any hand recounts performed (and some were not performed, others stopped) 
were in full view of republican operatives.

8. Again the original statement is true.  Of course the result of two machine 
counts jibe, it would be really scary if it didn't.  If you're going declare 
a winner based on the machine count, and the machine count has an error 
rate greater than the difference, it is a tie.  A more accurate count requires 
a more accurate machine (i.e. a human).  If you can document a case of tampering,
 I suggest you take it to the appropriate authorities.

9. Which part is false?

10. Again which part is false?  You simply changed the subject.  I'm sure 
Newt or Delay are very interested in bridging the gulf with Clinton!

This Nixon thing amuses me.  Nixon arguably lost the popular vote, was behind 
in electoral votes, and disputing Illinois would have brought him that much 
closer to winning.  In this case, Bush lost the popular (not as arguably) 
vote, and without Florida is losing in electoral votes.  Who should have 
conceded?  Ashcroft conceded for political reasons, not for the country. 
 While it is probably important to some people in Missouri, most of the 
country  doesn't know who Missouri's senators are.  He would have been contesting 
a grieving widow and the memory of a the Govenor.


>From one misguided minion to another