Well, looks like the Democratic Attorney General is actually trying to make sure all the votes are counted, despite the fact that it would take a Democratic seat and give it to a Republican. So, an election based on the votes instead of on partisan politics, nepotism, and improper judicial juristiction? No, doesn't sound familiar at all actually.
That being said, an assembly seat in a body that's controlled 2-1 by one party isn't exactly the Presidency of the United States.
(edited by MoeGates on 5.12.02 1740) Expressing myself EVERY day - but especially on July 22, 2002!
Merely referring to the election debaucle, my friend. The Attorney general's actions are correct, I believe. He is right to QUESTION to outcome. I am referring to the behavior of the two cantidates... The current office holder doing his best to ignore the contraversy, admitting that his former opponent has the right to the challenge, but that it "Does not change anything," buisness as usual retoric, and the challenger practically throwing a hissy-fit over election impropriety... However, in this case, I might have to side with the Democrat (GASP!!!). #1- he has held the office for a year now. #2- the margin of victory is slim in EITHER case, so it is clear that the voting base was evenly divided, so rocking the boat in this case will cause more problems than it will solve. And #3 - sworn affidavits are NOT the same as votes. Granted, a jammed polling machine is a serious matter, however, that is something that should have been handled a year ago. Is this something they JUST uncovered? Please. Let it go, and run again next time. And fix the voting process. Other than that, stop whining about 50 damned votes...
3 out of 5 Statisticians agree- Statistics are all bull$hit! "Pool-Boy"
The problem is that Eves policies are more moderate than were Harris' and no one really believes he'll stick to his guns...both of which costs us suppport and in turn cost us the election. This theory reeks of bollocks.