American Values
Here is a hypothetical, and I sincerely ask readers to think about this and give me a straight answer. This has nothing to do with anything in the past, any theories and such. It simply has to do with the next election.
So here goes:
In November 2008 there is a presidential election. The Democratic candidate is, say, John Edwards. The Republican candidate is, for the sake of argument, John McCain. The election is close 51% to 49%, but Pennsylvania and Minnesota carry the day for John McCain, and the networks declare McCain the winner.
Two days before Congress certifies the 2008 election, INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF surfaces that electronic voting machine tallies were manipulated in both Minnesota and Pennsylvania and votes for Edwards were flipped to McCain by persons associated with the Republican party. The count of the flipped votes was more than enough to reverse the McCain wins in both states and give the Electoral Vote count to Edwards.
Should the original result be certified or should the proved correct result be certified?
In other words, which is more important, Republicans retain the White House, or the election is fair and accurate?
The above setup is just for dressing. The point of this post is this question.
Any difference if the candidates are Giuliani and Clinton? What if the proof was discovered on January 22, 2009?
So here goes:
In November 2008 there is a presidential election. The Democratic candidate is, say, John Edwards. The Republican candidate is, for the sake of argument, John McCain. The election is close 51% to 49%, but Pennsylvania and Minnesota carry the day for John McCain, and the networks declare McCain the winner.
Two days before Congress certifies the 2008 election, INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF surfaces that electronic voting machine tallies were manipulated in both Minnesota and Pennsylvania and votes for Edwards were flipped to McCain by persons associated with the Republican party. The count of the flipped votes was more than enough to reverse the McCain wins in both states and give the Electoral Vote count to Edwards.
Should the original result be certified or should the proved correct result be certified?
In other words, which is more important, Republicans retain the White House, or the election is fair and accurate?
The above setup is just for dressing. The point of this post is this question.
Any difference if the candidates are Giuliani and Clinton? What if the proof was discovered on January 22, 2009?
posted by Jim at 9:59 PM
14 Comments:
I'm not sure how the law would read on this or even if there is a law. Who would think the greatest democracy in the world would have these problems. Unfortunately I fear we do.
As for your question, whoever the winner is should resign as they would be embroiled in controversy and could not affectively govern. If we assume the vp as a running mate I guess that would leave the Speaker as Pres.
I think the real winner of the popular vote should get in. Further, I think we should show some backbone like Mexico and the Ukraine and not accept fraudulent outcomes, but defend our democracy in the streets if we have to. Democrats in Congress have been too complacent about these electronic, paperless machines and, like Kerry, too ready to accept the outcome before any investigation is done.
It being entirely up to Congress to certify the election, the decision of what to do would fall along party lines.
And, actually, I think it should. Very little is incontrovertible.
I also, for what it's worth, do not believe that the presidency should go to one who wins the popular vote. States are real. They are republics within this republic, and unless they are constitutionally dissolved, the presidency should should be divided by 50 popular votes.
uh, divided = decided in above.
Go with the truth. That is the very heart of our democracy. And then, when the White House is just a smoking hole in the ground and the NYPD are randomly shooting every fifth person in street-to-street fighting, we hold another election.
I was going to try and answer the question but you simply turned it into Republican bashing and a silly hypothetical...
Dem's steal thousands of votes in Milwaukee county alone, and no one seems to care about it...
Milwaukee Democrats get caught voting twice and nothing is done...so you worry about your made up stories, I'll focus on reality
Game, I don't see anywhere in my post that I have bashed Republics.
Furthermore, a hypothetical is a hypothetical. It's not at all silly. It is a serious question meant to elicit serious thought and serious answers.
The point of my hypothetical is specifically for you to tell me if you hate the thought of a Democratic victory in 2008 SO MUCH that you would be willing to overlook a proved voter fraud affecting the election outcome.
So are you willing to answer the question or not? Or are you going to hide behind some phoney excuse that this hypothetical is silly?
I don't think you've got the guts to answer it seriously and honestly.
of course I do not want to see any cheating in any election...
Just to be sure I'm hearing you right, you would rather have Hillary in a verifiably accurate election than a Republican in a verifiably fraudulent election. Have I got that right?
I really really do not want either...but in no way do I want a Republican to cheat as the Dem's do from city to city, coast to coast
Game, I'm glad to hear that you don't want a Republican to win by cheating.
But really, Game, please stop claiming that the Democrats are the only ones who do that "city to city, coast to coast" stuff. You know and I know that that kind of stuff has been going on by BOTH PARTIES since elections were first held. To claim one party is worse than the other is really disengenuous.
And that stuff isn't the danger. The real danger is that the party in power will maintain power by their control of the process and with the assistance of those who would benefit by their retention of power.
Forget 2000 and forget 2004. Nothing will change those results fair or unfair. But as long as a large portion of the opposition party is not convinced that the election is conducted fairly, honestly, legally and accurately at all levels, then this country will be little better than a banana republic.
I think that the Electoral College should be abolished. Have thought so for a long time. Let the people speak directly on who they want for pReZ by their votes. That is what Congress should certify -- who the people directly vote in. I'd rather have a Repug in as pReZ than know the Electoral College has manipulated the vote the whole way down (and they do).
I'll answer the question, since that was the point of the post: Regardless of the outcome, I believe it is most important that elections be fair and square.
Thanks anon.
Post a Comment
<< Home