Greens want recount in Ohio

[coffman]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5445086/

We all remember hanging chads from the 2000 election. Get ready for a repeat. At least Ohio has written standards for if a chad counts as a vote. Also, lawyers for the Kerry campaign are now in Ohio. They have stated that they believe election results will not change and that they are there simply to investigate voting irregularities that have been reported all across the state.

[SadieDee]

Well, that's good. Regardless of who won or lost, I do think there was a lot of fraud in the election especially with the electronic machines. A machine in Columbus "malfunctioned" and gave Bush nearly 4,000 extra votes.

i.e.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20041105/1529257.shtml

state election results by county
http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/results/2004/gen/pres.htm

I'm from Ohio. Bush Sucks. Just an opinion.

[Reality's Fringe]

Why do they watna recount? Do they think that Ohio actually had millions of people vote for them and they only got several thousand? Or is this for Kerry?

Please don't let Ohio be the next Florida. Please don't let Ohio be the next Florida. Please don't let Ohio be the next Florida.

[coffman]

It also appears that Ralph Nader is trying to raise money for recounts in Ohio, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, and New Hampshire.

[eldad9]

even if a recount doesn't change the outcome, it will still make some people see how inaccurate / fraudulent electronic voting equipment can be.

[CaseyRyback]

It also appears that Ralph Nader is trying to raise money for recounts in Ohio, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, and New Hampshire.

he was not on the ballot in NC

[ZarathosNY]

Before they do a recount, they need to finish counting all the absentee and provisional ballots first.

[bignick]

So what would happen if they found say 200,000 "lost" votes for Kerry. He already conceded, or does that not matter?

[Drocket]

So what would happen if they found say 200,000 "lost" votes for Kerry. He already conceded, or does that not matter?
Legally, no. For the most part, that's just a polite formality. Even if you were to try to claim that it was a verbal contract, it would be a contract that was created based on false or inaccurate information, which would be very easy to overturn in court.

[eldad9]

Don't worry, the result won't be changed - but you'll see it was much closer than counted by voting machines created by a company whose CEO pledged to deliver ohio to bush.

[coffman]

Don't worry, the result won't be changed - but you'll see it was much closer than counted by voting machines created by a company whose CEO pledged to deliver ohio to bush.

I don't think the results will change either. The lesson to be learned in this election will be that it is important to generate a paper trail for recounts in order to be absolutely certain there is no machine error.

[coffman]

So what would happen if they found say 200,000 "lost" votes for Kerry. He already conceded, or does that not matter?
Legally, no. For the most part, that's just a polite formality. Even if you were to try to claim that it was a verbal contract, it would be a contract that was created based on false or inaccurate information, which would be very easy to overturn in court.

Exactly, a verbal concession means nothing. According to the U.S. Constitution what matters is the electoral count. In the above example, if 200,000 lost Kerry votes were discovered and none were discovered for Bush, Kerry would take Ohio's 20 electoral votes.

[bignick]

So when is the cutoff date for recounts and stuff?

[eldad9]

http://www.alternet.org/election04/20416/

[David85]

Even if the votes don't change we still need to see what happened that all these mistakes were made.

Of course Bush is the only one that doesn't seem to care... wonder why... maybe he knows something we don't....

[dafoomie]

They're not doing this in order to change the outcome, they just want a recount to get an accurate number. No one is contesting the results at all.

The Greens have a stake in this because they need something like 5% of the popular vote in order to get federal funding. I dunno if Ohio will make a difference for them though, maybe just for some balloting rules in Ohio.

[David85]

It's 15% in order to get the funding I thought.

Plus he is less that 1%, Ohio would not make any difference at all.

[Quackzilla]

The truth is out there.

[dafoomie]

It's 15% in order to get the funding I thought.

Plus he is less that 1%, Ohio would not make any difference at all.
A lot of states have some rules that say you need X amount of votes to make it easier or automatically get on ballots for local elections. Thats probably their concern.

[bmulligan]

It's 15% in order to get the funding I thought.

Plus he is less that 1%, Ohio would not make any difference at all.
A lot of states have some rules that say you need X amount of votes to make it easier or automatically get on ballots for local elections. Thats probably their concern.

Yes, most states require a cartain percentage of votes in a previous election in order to automatically qualify for ballot status in the next election (local, state or federal) without having to petition.

Federally matching funds is something completely different:

Partial public funding is available to Presidential primary candidates in the form of federal matching payments. Candidates seeking their party's nomination to the Presidency can qualify to receive matching funds by raising over $5,000 in each of 20 states (i.e., over $100,000). Only contributions from individuals apply toward this threshold. Although an individual may contribute up to $1,000 to a candidate, only a maximum of $250 counts toward the threshold and is matchable.1

Primary election candidates seeking matching funds must also submit a letter of agreements and certifications. This document is a contract with the government. In exchange for public funding, the candidates promise to comply with the provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act and the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act. As part of this agreement, candidates pledge to limit national spending for all primary elections and to limit spending in each state based on its voting age population.2 Moreover, candidates must agree not to spend more than $50,000 of their personal funds in connection with the campaign.3 The candidates must also facilitate an audit of their campaigns and make any necessary repayments. (http://www.fec.gov/info/chone.htm)