« Negotiations: Still Better than Preventive War and Impotent Fist Shaking | Main | "The Optics Are Bad" »

July 01, 2009

Comments

Skeptical prediction time here: Franken's seating will lead very directly to more resistance and destructive contrarianism from Ben Nelson and the other rightmost Democrats. Now that there'll be the prospect of cloture without depending on Republicans, the destructive fringe members' value will go up. Having 60 Democrats in the Senate will be in some ways worse than it would be with either 58-59 or 61-62.

I've got crow in the freezer ready to go if I'm wrong, though.

It's not Coleman's fault he didn't have a tame Secretary of State to refuse to recount the votes for him.

I am wondering, though, what the over/under is on Coleman and Pawlenty being called RINOs for conceding and agreeing to certify the election. My guess is that it's already ahppening.

Prof. H:

For once I respectfully disagree. In light of Bush v. Gore and other cases, Coleman had a legitimate legal argument (arguably) to bring to the state's supreme court. If candidates failed to argue forcefully in courts of law that they, as a matter of law, were entitled to be declared the victor, then we would be doing the rule of law a disservice. It is only through the appellate process that courts have an opportunity to analyze and debate the various statutory schemes that underlie the methods of counting votes, and to provide direction to lower courts, administrative officials and the legislature whether the statutory schemes meet constitutional standards.

Cheers,

If candidates failed to argue forcefully in courts of law that they, as a matter of law, were entitled to be declared the victor, then we would be doing the rule of law a disservice.

What was Coleman's argument that he might have won if only...?

I mean, wasn't it something like "If only I'd won, the Democrats wouldn't have sixty seats in the Senate?"

(Yes, I suppose I could go look it up. I just don't happen to recall the details from November, so if someone could summarise it in, er, two sentences, I would be much obliged.)

I am wondering, though, what the over/under is on Coleman and Pawlenty being called RINOs for conceding and agreeing to certify the election

done and done

This is just a tacky post, beneath your normal standards, I suspect you were fine with VP Gore going to the Supreme Court, or further if he could have. Contested elections, very closely contested, have a route that was legally followed to the appropriate authority. Nice final concession. Move on.

"I suspect you were fine with VP Gore going to the Supreme Court,"

Marty, as I recall it was George Bush who took the case into federal court to prevent the ballots being recounted.

It is of course dangerous to rely upon a simple reading of a court's judgment- they often distort the facts to make it look like their judgement was overwhelmingly obvious- but it sure looks like Coleman's arguments were pretty weak.

The strongest seemed to be that some absentee ballots that were excluded should have been included because some other absentee ballots were included that shouldn't have been.
Even if Coleman had succeeded in getting these excluded ballots opened and counted, no guarantee that he would have won.

Imagine if Coleman had taken it to federal court and been successful, those ballots opened and counted and he still lost!

"Marty, as I recall it was George Bush who took the case into federal court to prevent the ballots being recounted."

Didn't say he did, just said no one here had a problem with any challenge he would have made. Not really that important to me, seems an unnecessary poke.

Marty, in the Minnesota election, there was a complete and full recount; then Coleman wanted another recount, and another, and another, until, presumably, he won. In Florida, the recount was never permitted in the first place.

You don't see the difference?

"Wrong. It was time for Minnesotans to come together under the leaders it chose several months ago. Norm Coleman has dragged this out for nearly eight months"

I dunno. Given the extreme closeness of the vote and the 60-seat issue, the pressure would be just too high to let it drop. I'd expect no different from Franken if he'd been behind by 300 votes.

You want your party to fight for seats. It's a good thing. And our court system is perfectly designed to handle it.

"denying Minnesota's voters the representation they are due in the process"

The whole "denying representation" thing seems a little overblown to me. In Coleman's eyes, he's denying them crappy representation, so it's certainly justifiable. Plus it makes it sound like denying the voters of something was somehow his goal in the whole process. To me, that's just partisan rhetoric.


The state supreme court was the place to end it. I half-expected that Coleman would take it further, and I had no doubt that Mike's suspicion would turn out to be correct if he didn't.

Well the really classic example of Republicn obstructionism is now over. Can we go back to majority rule now and pass things by majority under reconcilliation? I'm as sick of "centrist" Dems, who are, in fact, rightwingers on a spectrum of issues, being allowed to obstruct, as I am of Republicans. It shouldn't take sixty votes to pass legislation. The misuse of the concept of bipartisanship and the misuse of the tactic of the filibuster is doing to Congress what the Californians did to their legislative body.

You don't see the difference?

One state is warmer.
One state didn't automatically provide for an automatic statewide recall.
And in one of those states, a partial recall was specifically requested.

You don't see the difference?

IOKIYAR.

Slarti, I don't understand your post.

You don't see the difference?

I guess I only see that the appropriate legal mechanisms weere exercised in both cases to ensure the correct outcome under the law.

Bush short circuited the lengthy legal process, wuth Al Gores concurrence by the way, so as not to leave the Presidency in limbo for eight months. That time frame was legitimately less important here.

I am pleased we have a winner, congrats to Al, I hope he is as smart as he can be funny. I don't live in Minnesota so I really haven't mad much attempt to know the answer to that.

It's mutual, SoV. This perpetual wondering why folks don't see this or that, and demanding of answers to your questions...it's all baffling.

Maybe another approach would work better.

Slarti, I don't understand your post.

This made me laugh.

Sigh. Slarti, if you don't understand what I wrote, why don't you ask for clarification? Again, I couldn't see any sense in your post. Could you rephrase, elaborate, give examples, something?

Marty, aren't you presuming something here? An automatic recount was mandated by Florida state law which was thwarted at several levels. That is, the legal mechanisms did not work. This went to the Supreme court, where a highly controversial one-time ruling was issued, a ruling that favored the candidate who - it turns out - received fewer legal votes in Florida.

I don't see how the income was correct in any sense in this case.

In contrast, Coleman did get his recount, he did go to court, and he was slapped down by unanimous rulings not once, but several times.

If you want to assert that the two situations are comparable, fine. But you're going to have to do some work here, which you simply haven't bothered to do yet. It's certainly not my job to convince you otherwise (and, frankly, I get the sense that any attempt to do so would be wasted effort.)

Scent, You are right, your fundamental premise is just not that important to me. The "automatic recount" wasn't automatic, lots of whining on both sides in both instances and the appropriate legal authority made the ruling. It's how our country works, the differences are all based on your political prism.

Not much to say except, "About time". It was clear quite some time ago that Coleman wasn't going to prevail in the courts.

Oh, and I do hope if the Senator from a neighboring state heckles him, Franken doesn't tackle him to the floor. Though it would make CSPAN more lively.

An automatic recount was mandated by Florida state law which was thwarted at several levels.

This is incorrect, SoV. An automated statewide discount was most decidedly NOT part of Florida state statute back in 2000. I'm not sure that it is, even now.

Which is probably why Gore requested recounts in some individual counties, I'd guess, and not a statewide recount: because the law didn't provide for a statewide recount.

Hopefully this ties together any loose rhetorical ends from our last exchange.

"Didn't say he did, just said no one here had a problem with any challenge he would have made."

Gee, that's wildly untrue.

"An automated statewide discount"

But all states should have that!

Also, coupons.

Ok, relevant statutes.

2000:

(4) If the returns for any office reflect that a candidate was defeated or eliminated by one-half of a percent or less of the votes cast for such office, that a candidate for retention to a judicial office was retained or not retained by one-half of a percent or less of the votes cast on the question of retention, or that a measure appearing on the ballot was approved or rejected by one-half of a percent or less of the votes cast on such measure, the board responsible for certifying the results of the vote on such race or measure shall order a recount of the votes cast with respect to such office or measure. A recount need not be ordered with respect to the returns for any office, however, if the candidate or candidates defeated or eliminated from contention for such office by one-half of a percent or less of the votes cast for such office request in writing that a recount not be made. Each canvassing board responsible for conducting a recount shall examine the counters on the machines or the tabulation of the ballots cast in each precinct in which the office or issue appeared on the ballot and determine whether the returns correctly reflect the votes cast. If there is a discrepancy between the returns and the counters of the machines or the tabulation of the ballots cast, the counters of such machines or the tabulation of the ballots cast shall be presumed correct and such votes shall be canvassed accordingly.

2008:

(7) If the unofficial returns reflect that a candidate for any office was defeated or eliminated by one-half of a percent or less of the votes cast for such office, that a candidate for retention to a judicial office was retained or not retained by one-half of a percent or less of the votes cast on the question of retention, or that a measure appearing on the ballot was approved or rejected by one-half of a percent or less of the votes cast on such measure, the board responsible for certifying the results of the vote on such race or measure shall order a recount of the votes cast with respect to such office or measure. The Elections Canvassing Commission is the board responsible for ordering federal, state, and multicounty recounts. A recount need not be ordered with respect to the returns for any office, however, if the candidate or candidates defeated or eliminated from contention for such office by one-half of a percent or less of the votes cast for such office request in writing that a recount not be made.
Also, coupons.

*headslap*

At least I didn't say automated statewide refund.

"Which is probably why Gore requested recounts in some individual counties, I'd guess, and not a statewide recount: because the law didn't provide for a statewide recount."

But he was perfectly capable of requesting a recount in every individual county, if he'd wanted a state-wide recount. I think it's widely understood that Gore was gaming the system, by requesting recounts only in counties where he expected a recount would add more to his total than Bush's, and not in counties where the opposite was true. And waited until the last minute in order that Bush would not have time to respond in kind.

Not illegal, of course, but neither particularly noble.

Brett, I really think you need to peruse the relevant sections of statute to be able to say that, and also look at Gore's file request for recount. Statute says that you've got to have a stated reason that you think the results are erroneous for each county.

like, deja vu, man.

Brett - As I understand the process, Bush was also perfectly capable of requesting a statewide recount, if he wanted to make sure that that happened. It's not like it was a big secret that Gore was likely to ask for a recount in specific counties favorable to him. Bush didn't want to ask for a fuller recount because he was trying to project "I've won, already, now let's get done with these pesky court proceedings and get on with the inauguration - oh, my, look at the time, no time to do further counting after all." So both Bush and Gore were trying to game the system as best they could to favor their side.

> I think it's widely understood
> that Gore was gaming the system

I wouldn't be shocked if that were true.

I would, however, be stunned if that were a wide and commonly accepted understanding across the political aisle.

There was no provision for a requested, statewide recount, Dave W. There was provision for a recount on a county-by-county basis, if you showed reason why the county results (each done differently!) were invalid, for each county. You had to file the request with the canvassing board of each county, individually.

Scent, You are right, your fundamental premise is just not that important to me. The "automatic recount" wasn't automatic, lots of whining on both sides in both instances and the appropriate legal authority made the ruling. It's how our country works, the differences are all based on your political prism.

Posted by: Marty

Er, Marty, the premise in question was yours. If it wasn't that important, why make it? In any event, I think we all agree that your charge of hypocrisy is baseless.

So, it looks as if I was correct wrt automatic recounts in the Florida situation, yes :-)

An automatic recount was mandated by Florida state law which was thwarted at several levels.

This is incorrect, SoV. An automated statewide discount was most decidedly NOT part of Florida state statute back in 2000. I'm not sure that it is, even now.

Going from what I actually wrote, and going by your quotation of the relevant statute, I take it that you retract your claim, yes?

No.

"gaming the system" by requesting recounts county-by-county in close counties, as required by the then-law of Florida is, of course, EXACTLY the same as having a brother who ran the state and the head of the campaign in that state as the Secretary of State for that state purge the rolls of many spurious "felons", importing "rioters" to threaten the councils counting ballots, having the state "called" by a cousin on Fox News, and then having the Supreme Court throw out it's credibility and principles to make a ruling stopping even the first recount from happening, which only applied to that one case, this one time, really, we mean it.

Or, y'know, NOT. This whole "Oh yeah, well Gore wasn't perfect at things too!" to try and claim false equivalence and the irrelevance of the Bush gang's hijacking of the election in 2000, and all of the disasters that came from that is both tiring and fake.

The other difference is that when all the votes had been counted - by October 2001, sadly - it became clear that Gore had won Florida by a comfortable majority, according to the usual democratic rules and Florida election law, and despite everything Jeb Bush had done to prevent voters he thought might not vote for his brother from voting.

Whereupon, for some reason, the US media shut up about it - even though the loser in the White House had just let the worst terrorist attack in US history happen on his watch. If there was ever a time to point out that the loser was a loser and Gore ought to have been declared President in November, you'd think that would be it...

...how many people did that Supreme Court decision to let George Bush's son just have the Presidency he wanted kill, again? A million here, three thousand there, it's so hard to keep track.

Oh well. All water under the bridge now, eh? But you can see why Coleman was so desperate for recounts: YNK what might happen if you don't do them! YMMV. IOKIFYAR. HTH. HAND.

Oh, right on time.

Sigh. Do you actually read what I post? What am I wrong about? Look at what you've quoted as me being wrong, look at what I actually wrote, and look at your confirming statute.

Is this some sort of partisan thing?

I'm looking forward to your admission of error. Graciously given, I am sure.

Likewise, I'm sure. But I'm not holding my breath.

Thank you, Slartibartfast, for noting that there had to be perceived errors to justify a manual recount request, in a much terser form than the comment I had composed. It's totally unfair that your name is not important.

Is there some sort of personal problem here? What's going on? You've been rather nasty this whole thread for absolutely no reason that I can see, and you can't even admit you've made a rather glaring mistake in what I said.

What have you got against me anyway? I'd like to clear this up right now.

"So both Bush and Gore were trying to game the system as best they could to favor their side."

Did I say something to suggest otherwise?

I was simply responding to Slart's suggestion that Gore had asked for the partial recount because a state-wide recount wasn't available: No, even if it had been available, he wouldn't have asked for one, because a selective recount was better political gamesmanship. Gore, after all, had no particular reason to believe that he'd carried the state, and a partial recount might have given him the victory even if a full recount would have confirmed Bush's win.

True, Bush could have asked for recounts, too, but as the declared winner, he had no reason to roll the dice. Not a matter of acting like a winner; He WAS the winner at that point. And Gore's recount request, far from being a sure thing, was deliberately delayed until the last minute, just to preclude Bush having time to respond with his own requests.

If there was ever a time to point out that the loser was a loser and Gore ought to have been declared President in November, you'd think that would be it...

Well, 2004 was still a long way away, and there was no other practical means of removing Bush at that point, given that the Electoral College had done its bit, and Congress had done its bit, and Bush had been sworn in. Though I imagine House Republicans might have considered impeaching Bush and Cheney if the news media were really flogging on electoral illegitimacy. Whereupon President Hastert would have appointed Gore his Vice President and then resigned. ROTFLMAO.

Anyway, sorry, Jesurgislac, there's really no proper equivalent over here to a vote of no-confidence enabling changing horses in mid-Apocalypse. And attention would invariably have wandered by the next presidential election. IMNSHO.

Oh, right on time.

2:43 PM EDT? Really? Is there a pool or something? INRI.

Oh boy!

"Though I imagine House Republicans might have considered impeaching Bush and Cheney if the news media were really flogging on electoral illegitimacy."

And then laughed hysterically at the notion.

Al Franken is smarter than most current Senators, he is funnier than most current Senators, and his heart's in the right place. He will be a great Senator, and I feel very grateful to 312 Minnesotans for making him a Senator. I'd like to buy each of them a drink.

What I can't decide is this: would I be standing drinks for the 312 most dedicated DFLers in Minnesota, or for the 312 least committed, most marginal Franken voters -- people who might easily have voted for Coleman if they'd had something different for breakfast on election day?

All the back and forth about the process of recounts and court proceedings seems to make a fetish of precision over accuracy. The thing we're trying to measure -- the will of the voters -- has statistical uncertainty in it.

Imagine two picnickers on the rim of the Grand Canyon who flip a coin for the last sandwich. The coin rolls over the edge. Instead of flipping another damn coin, they leave the sandwich uneaten while they clamber down the cliff face to find out how the original coin landed. Seems a bit silly, to me.

They shoulda held a run-off. Both in FL 2000 and MN 2008. I don't know how either one would have come out. But I'd have more confidence that the winner was actually the candidate who "the people" wanted.

--TP

"like, deja vu, man."

Next let's discuss abortion for the very first time ever.

"Do you actually read what I post?"

See, this is a tad hostile.

(This is not to say that I'm never a tad hostile, or the least bit sarcastic in these parts, myself, because it turns out I am. But since you were asking the other day, and since you're quite quick to accuse other people of it.)

"You've been rather nasty this whole thread for absolutely no reason that I can see"

You haven't been around here a comparatively long amount of time, and in fact Slartibartfast is just being typically himself, and really quite polite, mild, straightforward, and non-cryptic compared to his occasional past lesser moments.

Which is also to say that I don't at all agree that he's been nasty in this thread. Minimalist is not "nasty," even though some folks can easily confuse the two. And lots of folks read "tone" into writing that the writer has not placed there.

(Slart's lesser moments do tend to have, at times, involved some rather passive-aggressive minimalism and crypticism, but I don't see a significant degree of that in this thread.)

I'd also suggest keeping in mind that whatever you may think, people owe you neither answers nor apologies nor agreement on demand.

Look: I'm fine with people pursuing legal recourse until the writing is well and truly on the wall. In my opinion, this happened in this race back in April. Of course Coleman had the legal right to go on. I just think that given the odds of his prevailing, and the cost to Minnesota. he should not have exercised it. I did not feel the same way about Gore, but I would have felt the same way had Kerry tried something similar in 2004.

I'd also suggest keeping in mind that whatever you may think, people owe you neither answers nor apologies nor agreement on demand.

Mr. Farber, you owe it to us to explain how you decided this, and apologize for unilateraly asserting it, wouldn't you agree?

No reasonable person could possibly disagree, unless they were being deliberately dishonest.

"Do you actually read what I post?"

See, this is a tad hostile.

Oh really? Why? Given that he has attributed something to me that I did not write, I think the question an eminently reasonable one. I find it odd that you would think it 'a tad hostile'.

"You've been rather nasty this whole thread for absolutely no reason that I can see"

You haven't been around here a comparatively long amount of time, and in fact Slartibartfast is just being typically himself, and really quite polite, mild, straightforward, and non-cryptic compared to his occasional past lesser moments.

Which is also to say that I don't at all agree that he's been nasty in this thread. Minimalist is not "nasty," even though some folks can easily confuse the two. And lots of folks read "tone" into writing that the writer has not placed there.

Uh-huh. Someone who is, by your own admission deliberately cryptic, when asked to explain what he meant, says "It's mutual, SoV. This perpetual wondering why folks don't see this or that, and demanding of answers to your questions...it's all baffling. Maybe another approach would work better." Rather odd definition of 'nasty' you have there.

Personally, if someone says they have difficulty understanding something I've said, I do my best to try to clarify. Must be that effective teaching thing, I guess.

I'd also suggest keeping in mind that whatever you may think, people owe you neither answers nor apologies nor agreement on demand.

Posted by: Gary Farber

And I would suggest you refrain from imputing expectations to certain people . . . especially when you have no basis for them. Given that Slarti knows he's wrong, you know he's wrong, and I know he's wrong, I could care less whether he admits it. The only question is whether he is adult enough, mature enough to do so, and to do it in a civil fashion.

He's perfectly free not to, of course, just as I am then perfectly free to deduce what are some rather unsavory personal attributes from his behaviour. In fact, just as I am free to deduce certain facts about you from your behaviour.

I'm sorry if you don't like that, but that's just the way it is, and there's not anything you can really do about it. See how that works?

"Rather odd definition of 'nasty' you have there."

Perhaps so. Certainly you're free to ignore it.

"Given that Slarti knows he's wrong, you know he's wrong, and I know he's wrong...."

You seem impressively omniscient; I'd have gone for only one out of three there, at best.

"I'm sorry if you don't like that"

Again, you clearly have highly developed mind-reading skills.

"See how that works?"

And not only that, I'm ever more impressed with your lack of hostility. Carry on.

"Given that Slarti knows he's wrong, you know he's wrong, and I know he's wrong...."

You seem impressively omniscient; I'd have gone for only one out of three there, at best.

Are you saying you did not read what I wrote, and Slarti's response before jumping in? There really isn't any room for misinterpretation, so I'm guessing that you're writing about something you haven't bothered to read. That's a rather silly thing to be doing

"I'm sorry if you don't like that"

Again, you clearly have highly developed mind-reading skills.

Sigh. Do you know what a conditional is? I don't know whether you 'like that' or not, but if you don't, well, it doesn't change anything. You really don't know how an if-then construction works? That's just weird. If I say "If it does not rain tomorrow, then I will mow the lawn", most people don't jump to the conclusion that I think it's not going to rain tomorrow.

"See how that works?"

And not only that, I'm ever more impressed with your lack of hostility. Carry on.

Posted by: Gary Farber

WHOOOOOSH!!!!

Uh, Gary, since you didn't get it, that was a reference to the way you've been behaving. Glad to see you agree that it's been rather hostile, and again, for absolutely no reason that I can see.

Unless you can actually answer in a rational, adult, fashion, I don't have anything else to say here, save that I think the original point I was making, that the charge of hypocrisy that marty made is false, almost ludicrously so.

wow I haven't been here in hours and my name is in the last sentence, hypocrisy is not a word I used, meant or even thought. I believe people view these things through their own political prism and much of the outrage is tempered or magnified by that. Not a difficult concept or a much of a criticism. It just is.

"Sigh. Do you know what a conditional is? I don't know whether you 'like that' or not, but if you don't, well, it doesn't change anything. You really don't know how an if-then construction works? That's just weird. If I say "If it does not rain tomorrow, then I will mow the lawn", most people don't jump to the conclusion that I think it's not going to rain tomorrow."

If you were passive-aggressive, this would be quite an attack.

+5 internets to Sebastian.

I believe people view these things through their own political prism and much of the outrage is tempered or magnified by that. Not a difficult concept or a much of a criticism. It just is.

Posted by: Marty

Actually Marty, this is what you said:

This is just a tacky post, beneath your normal standards, I suspect you were fine with VP Gore going to the Supreme Court, or further if he could have.

Since the two situations are not remotely comparable, you really don't have a leg to stand on. In fact, my guess is that Hilzoy's number one concern in any election is not who wins or loses, but whether or not all the legal votes are counted. This didn't happen in the Florida election, which tended to make people who actually believe in all that Democracy rah-rah a little miffed. Otoh, the legal votes were counted in Minnesota, recounted and counted again. By April, this was very apparent to anyone who wasn't a stone partisan. So you have no reason for complaint of for commentary on people's motives.

If you were passive-aggressive, this would be quite an attack.

Posted by: Sebastian

Uh-huh. The truth of the matter has nothing to do with it. I can't tell you how contemptible that sort of thinking is. In any event, while I've been accused of many things, passive-aggressive behaviour is way down the list. If I think you've said something stupid and/or indefensible, I'll tell you.

You know, like when you popped off with that indefensible, unfalsifiable just-so story about 'the intent behind the CRA' the other day, a narrative that was anything but good science or an observation to base policy on. That was pure stupid.

See? Nothing passive-aggressive there at all. Your formulation which I quoted above on the other hand . . .

"I suspect you were fine with VP Gore going to the Supreme Court, or further if he could have."

Perhaps some blackberry pie?

"Otoh, the legal votes were counted in Minnesota, recounted and counted again."

Except in the end all the votes weren't counted, in either election, or any election that is contested. Some were disqualified, some were counted because a person decided the contesting of them wasn't adquate, some in Minnesota were left in the envelope because they were postmarked a day too late.

I think Hilzoy, since you are going to speak for her, understood my point fine and, in fact, wrote a nice response that I believe was thoughtful and to the point:

"Look: I'm fine with people pursuing legal recourse until the writing is well and truly on the wall. In my opinion, this happened in this race back in April. Of course Coleman had the legal right to go on. I just think that given the odds of his prevailing, and the cost to Minnesota. he should not have exercised it. I did not feel the same way about Gore, but I would have felt the same way had Kerry tried something similar in 2004."

A statement of fact and an opinion based on the facts, without histrionics. Great response, recognizing my point accurately and disagreeing with it. Two conclusions,hers and mine, neither right or wrong.

Next time, you might want to make this kind of statement a little earlier rather than staying away for hours and coming back horrified. Of course, YMMV.

"Perhaps some blackberry pie?"

Made my day. :)

How about some cherry pie, instead?

One of these guys is a nephew of mine.

"Otoh, the legal votes were counted in Minnesota, recounted and counted again."

Except in the end all the votes weren't counted, in either election, or any election that is contested. Some were disqualified, some were counted because a person decided the contesting of them wasn't adquate, some in Minnesota were left in the envelope because they were postmarked a day too late.

Which is to say, the legal votes were counted, and the non-legal votes were not counted. Which is what SoV said.


"But one who condemns sinners deserves the same condemnation for the same sin."

I'm sure Jesus wouldn't have agreed with this part.

(I hate talking about actual religion, it was really supposed to be a metaphor(?)),

"Which is to say, the legal votes were counted, and the non-legal votes were not counted. Which is what SoV said."

Excellent point. Thus the legal challenge to the appropriate legal authority, you know, that Democracy rah-rah thing.


Would I like some cherry pie?! Why, start at 2:20 here!

Could I have some coffee with that?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad