Skip to main content

View Diary: [Updated] Ohio to outlaw recounts and shield Diebold (196 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm wondering why DHinMI (4.00)
    is not writting the diaries, since he is so knowledgeable, I would think this an important issue.

    Can't go to war without money, cut the budget now!

    by mattes on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 08:54:36 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  That would require effort (4.00)
      and research. It's easier to take pot shots from the sideslines  "Hey your diary sucks because you didn't do this or didn't do that. Oh, and btw, I'm so freakin smart".

      I can identify because I know I'm sometimes tempted to do the same thing - everyone likes and needs to be right. I resist now because I don't think it's being as productive as I should be by pouring water on someone's fire.

      -4.25, -6.87: Someday, after the forest fire of the Right has died we'll say "Whew, I'm happy that's over."

      by CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 09:18:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Write What? (none)
      "Reliable sources don't report that bill will end democracy in Ohio; no evidence exists of claims I didn't make."  

      And I HAVE written several posts at The Next Hurrah on voting procedure.  You would know that if you had looked, but that would mean you would have to expend effort.

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 09:56:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  what is your take on the Ohio law? (4.00)
        Just curious. I looked at Last Hurrah, a good site, but didn't immediately see a voting article, I'm sure there are some but I'd love to hear your opinion on this law. It is as bad as they say at freepress? Is freepress in general being responsible?

        First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. ~~ Mohandas Gandhi

        by TimeTogether on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 10:41:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I Dunno (none)
          I wrote that in my first comment.  Maybe it does all the awful things mentioned in this diary, but I'm not willing to take the word of one blog linking to someone who's not viewed as much of an expert in election law (as opposed to grabbing headlines).  

          I find it easy to believe that there would be impediments put in place making it harder to do the kind of work ACT did in Ohio.  I find it hard to believe that they would make it easy for the officials in Cuyahoga county to use electronic voting machines to screw the Republicans in statewide elections.  But again, I don't know the current state of the law well enough to even speculate informedly on what the changes even are, much less the implications for those changes.

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by Dana Houle on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 11:24:24 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  We need some kind of independent auditing body n/t (none)

            First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. ~~ Mohandas Gandhi

            by TimeTogether on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 12:49:17 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Then Perhaps You Should Stop Denigrating (4.00)
            The Opinions Of Others.
            You admit [about the proposed law] that
            Maybe it does all the awful things mentioned in this diary, but
            simply because
            I'm not willing to take the word of one blog linking to someone who's not viewed as much of an expert in election law (as opposed to grabbing headlines).
            you are willing to make the following statement:
            I have no doubt this bill, if passed, would suck.  But until I either read the bill or an analysis by some non-partisan entitity (like the Ohio legislative services bureau or whatever they call it) or something from a media source other than the Bob Fitrakis, this shouldn't even be recommended.
            When a poster answered you with a link to a Toledo Blade article, you responded by claiming that the article did not support the diarist's points except for the one about homeless voting.
            Another poster answered your objection to a lack of link to the actual legislation by pointing out that a link was posted. You denigrated the text in the link as being inaccurately posted. You then proceeded to tell all the rest of us about how to read pending legislation. You used several posts for this suggestion. Yet you admit that
            I'm not an expert on Ohio election law, and I don't want to spend a week or two getting up to speed on the issues contained in a massive, multi-section bill.  Rather than posting on everything, I think sometimes we'd be much better served when people recognize their limitations and don't make unsupportable pronouncements that they can't establish, especially on issues on which it's unlikely that most people around here would have any  expertise.
            Along the road to that telling admission, you waved your expertise, accused others of shoddy thinking, suggested that you were qualified to put others in their place because you are a past guest blogger here [18 whole months, and I mention the 18 (when the rule is 12) because you did], and in general acted like an immature asshole someone on an ego trip.
            You are an excellent diarist, a fine researcher, a dynamite writer. I have enjoyed every one of my visits to your superb blog, The Next Hurrah. It is easy to understand why Markos broke his own rule to give you 6 extra months of guest blogging time. Despite those positive things, nothing gives you the sacred right to come to a diary thread and shit all over the diarist, and all over every commenter who disagrees with you, and to insult every recommending kossak with your dismissive remarks about what we chose to recommend.
            You told a poster that you will automatically view any subsequent posts by her/him as unserious and unworthy of your time. May I point out that persons unfamiliar with your excellent blog might feel the same about visiting it, if they merely judge it by your comments on this thread?
            You dissed one poster by stating that s/he should start his/her own blog. The mote which you found in that poster's eye, and in the eye of the diarist, looks [from Cuyahoga County] to be a beam in your own eye. I offer this comment as eyewash; hope it helps.
            •  Disagreement (none)
              Hmm, how many people did I initiate comments with?  How many people told me I was wrong, didn't care about something, was making excuses, yada yada yada.  How many people changed the subject from the fairly narrow point I made, which was that this diary relies on one source, and hours after it's been posted, nobody had provided any additional sources supporting the claims of this diary.  I made clear what I know, but also made clear where the lines of my expertise stop, instead of making claims I'm not qualified to support.  And I'm the problem?

              Seems to me, if I was such an asshole, someone would have been able to provide at least ONE piece of evidence other than that single source cited in the diary.  But I guess skepticism is only for claims of our political opponents, and not something we should ever exercise toward our allies to make our cause stronger and more effective.  And skepticism should be seen as suspect, evidence of duplicity or malevolence, or at best self-aggrandizement.  

              And when you're misquoted, come back and tell me how you repsond to the person who willfully (and possibly even malevolently) misquoted you to imply you were dishonest or unfair.  But I stand by my dismissal of that person.  It WAS a frivolous point, made only by ripping what I said apart and out of context.  

              The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

              by Dana Houle on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 02:33:47 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  OSU law prof CONFIRMS: HB 3 eliminates federal (4.00)
                challenges. And, for the record, I cited the Ohio Revised Code upthread in our discussion of elimination of challenges to federal elections.  Anway, I'll cross-post testimony by Daniel Tokaji, an OSU law professor who confirms that the bill elimnates federal office challenges.

                Go here and turn to page 4. Boldface added:

                The other provision eliminates Ohio's contest for all federal elections, inclusing both presidential and congressional contests. Sub HB 3 provides that such contests "shall be conducted with the applicable provisions of federal law."

                It is not clear what law this is referring to, as there is no analogous federal statute providing for contests. Perhaps "federal law" refers to the timetable for electoral ballot counting.  Yet federal law contains no contest provision, but instead requires Congress to defer to the states, in cases where there's been a "final determination" of any election contests or controversies by the safe harbor date.

              •  well, for what it's worth (none)
                I asked for your opinion, and I appreciated the reply.  Just as I don't think diaries have to be exemplars of research, I also think comments can be negative and still be valid, insightful, useful.

                The Voting issue sure has a dearth of good trustworthy sources though, I'd hate to shut off discussion because of that, it'd be a Catch-22.

                We need to fight for that research, for top-tier big-name investigative teams to go to (shudder) OHIO, spend some shoe-leather turning over some rocks. Not enough research, not enough coverage of what's been done.

                Nothing against OHIO myself, but I know that most  journalists do not consider it a hot career move.

                First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. ~~ Mohandas Gandhi

                by TimeTogether on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 10:36:20 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  Pro-Carter Center Election Reform DKos Diaries? (4.00)
        The Carter Center has made a whole pile of recommendations for reform of the voting process in the US. Nobody calls President Carter or the Carter Center "fraudsters." Where's your DKos diaries generating enthusiasm and support for Carter Center recommendations?
      •  With limited time (none)
        I mostly read Daily Kos. I did go to your web site...and I see no subject section called Voting Reform or anything like that. Does this mean you don't think it's that important? Honest question.

        Time for a New Direction, before we all fall off the cliff.

        by mattes on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 11:54:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  We Also Don't Have... (none)
          ...categories for civil rights, or human rights, or all kinds of other things.  But we do have categories for law, elections, campaigning and organizing, etc.

          But lets say, for the sake of argument, that I didn't think election reform was important.  Would that make my comments about what claims are supported in this diary and the thread any different?  Do you have to agree with someone on every subject in order to acknowledge they have a insight or logically sound point that has implications you don't like?  

          In short, if I say a claim is not supported by the evidence proffered, why does it matter what I think about the bigger issue?  

          Why can't people accept that when someone disagrees with them on some aspect of an issue that it doesn't mean they don't care about that issue?  Why can't people entertain the possibility that they care so much about the issue that they don't want shoddy thinking, claims and hyperbole to taint the public discussion of the issue and make the reforms they hope for less likely to come about?  Why is it that so many people don't engage the logical and rhetorical arguments offered, but instead assail or at least question the motives of the person making the arguments?

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by Dana Houle on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 12:11:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I understand (4.00)
            I just went to your site b/c you mentioned it would help. I think your critique of the dairy is unfair though, people don't usually expect to have an issue settled and researched by a daily. (Although I love those diaries, I do.) Just a point of view aired.

            But you are right too. I'm concerned. Thanks for your response above.

            I think Carter as a democratic ex-president WOULD be considered 'political.' He flatly says Gore won in 2000, I happen to agree with him, but that's not mainstream Democratic view, much less bi-partisan.

            If we don't get a bi-partison body people can trust soon. I fear trust will be lost in the system. I know mine is gone, but I'm not a particularly trusting sort.

            I'm a technical person, not a lawyer, and what I see wouldn't pass ATM standards in any state.

            First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. ~~ Mohandas Gandhi

            by TimeTogether on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 12:55:47 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Well.....I'd like to see (none)
            more dems in office, start there. So discussion of any individual issue is important but if voter problems get worse, there is more opportunity for losing elections. So from my perspective, if I  thought dems getting elected were important enough to start a blog, I would assume Voting Reform would be one of the MOST important issues. Since most people here agree there were more problems for dems voting than rethugs, setting aside whether there exists evidence of voter fraud, obviously this will continue and can only get worse if nothing is done. Shouldn't this be an ongoing frontline issue for all dems especially the leaders of dems blogs.
            Correcting any wrongful information posted on diaries, of course.

            Lately there seems to be alot of energy debunking fraud diaries, but not as many addressing what should we do to avoid fraud. Better exit polling, watchers, auditors...what?

            Time for a New Direction, before we all fall off the cliff.

            by mattes on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 01:03:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site