What can't John Edwards challenge the Ohio vote count?

[Samantha]

He was a candidate, right?

Even if Kerry doesn't want to jump in, why can't the candidate for vice president ask for a recount? Edwards IS an attorney. Does he know something we do not regarding the advisability of doing this? Would the party not support him? Is that it?

I know the answer you will give -- it wouldn't be politically correct. The number two guy would not challenge a decision of the number 1 guy if he wishes to have a political future. But think about it. If the gnawing continues to grow, and Kerry doesn't do anything, would any of us who feel the election was rigged consider voting for him in 2004. Absolutely not. If he caves today, he caves in 2008. And come to think of it, he caved in 2000. Remember when he walked down the steps following the vote of the Electoral College? A journalist asked him was he asked to sign the petition of the Congressional Black Caucus to challenge the slate of electors from Florida. No, I wasn't asked to sign, Kerry said, "nor would I have signed had I been asked."

So here appears the agony: the political inadvisability of someone like Edwards jumping in to ask for a recount when Kerry won't versus the reality of the situation, who is going to vote for him in 2008 if he doesn't (excuse me, Mrs. Edwards, it's just a question I am mulling over).

So what do you think? What is Edwards' position? Political or realistic? If it's the latter, would he be eligible to challenge? I can't see why not, can you?

[RoeBear]

1. Maybe he doesn't do it...

...because he knows there is nothing to find.

[Samantha]

2. That's what I am asking

Do you believe there's nothing to find? Do you think there is any political disgrace to asking for another look? I don't. I call it erring on the side of caution....

[Ann Arbor Dem]

3. What?!?!?

That was tongue-in-cheek, right?

[Samantha]

5. I see that you are replying to the first response but I want to take this

opportunity to clarify my original thread. Jonathan Turley said tonight the same thing a lot of people have been saying. It's difficult to ask for a recount without the support of the candidate. My question is, why not Edwards? He was a candidate. He wants a political future. Is there a political future for a candidate who simply rolls over while this controversy exists? I don't think so. I wouldn't vote for someone who simply walked away before the dust settled.

I want a fighter.

[Ann Arbor Dem]

6. Oops....it was for the post #1....sorry n/t

[RoeBear]

8. Would you want a recount if...

...our candidate had won?

[Samantha]

10. Yes, if there were serious questions about the accuracy of the vote

I do not think with this Country being as polarized as it is, we can afford for a large percentage of the electorate to think elections are fixed, regardless of which side that is. Civility is maintained through the rule of law. If there is no respect for the rule of law, there is no civility. We are seeing that now in this Country. Part of that flows from the unanswered questions regarding election 2000. Allowing this to simply perk will worsen the situation. How can we afford that?

That gross uncertainly about election 2000 is part of the stimulus for this election uncertainty. We learned the maneuvers then; we saw them in action last week. This must be addressed.

After all, to whose benefit does it inure to have the seeds of election manipulation sewn and allowed to grow? It benefits none of us.

Historically, this has happened in past elections other than 2000. Think about the Kennedy/Nixon 1960 election. If that election was "bought" as many insist it was, just ponder this question: how do we know exactly how elections in this country HAVE been legitimate? I am really wondering.

[Eloriel]

12. In case you haven't kept abreast of all this --

VOTE FRAUD Links - a DU Compendium
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=201&topic_id=1984#

[Samantha]

13. Do you have any thoughts on this question?

Is it simply politically incorrect for Edwards to say anything since he's Kerry's number two? Of course the politically correct would say it would damage his future; I saw it will damage both of their futures if neither does anything. How do you see it?

[PATRICK]

4. I can and I'm not a lawyer

This is Florida without the winning ballots hidden in the boxes. The numbers don't even seem to justify the challenge in the areas prone to the easiest correction. Satisfaction AFTER fraud or invisible lost votes is proven is more nebulous and those cases need a lot of preparation.

Florida is even more tempting but the margins are psychologically daunting in enemy territory where Jeb so easily tweaked things in 2002.

Could they scarf up states on the edges, undo the PV? This can't be an easy decision and if premature or blown with a press still a hundred miles off the mark the chances diminish. Maybe they learned that in 2000, but nothing was done in 2002 but wailing and gnashing of teeth- and the GOP improved their defenses.

Maybe they have to make a decision to attack the sure machine death of voting per se without being tied to a partisan election issue. I don't see how the can get anywhere by retreating that far though. They might slow it down, but the backdoors into the vote tampering will multiply like rabbits as legislative clout for the opposition becomes meaningless.

Any creative minds who like to break out of traps like these? I would have thought there were.

How about anything that will work to the objective, like RFK destroying the mafia through small tax evasion suits? A Qui Tam money suit is like that but not the answer, nor is it likely to reap any public success. They didn't want to go for Civil Rights' violations in 2000 and they don't sound like it now. HAVA or certification violations? Likely, but what then?I'd say you have to nail a witness or perp, the hard stuff, but publicly convincing which is what we need now.

[Samantha]

9. Thank you, Patrick, for that thoughtful response

I agree Florida is the real prize, but Ohio could change the results if it were overturned. Jonathan also mentioned a combo of states, Nevada with New Mexico and one other (Iowa?) that could also change the results.

I was disturbed when I read the ACLU had filed a challenge on not counting the absentee ballots. The suit was filed against two precincts, and they lost. The ruling said there were not enough ballots to change the results of the election.

Perhaps there were not enough absentee ballots in those two precincts to change the results, but it was announced that there were 1 million absentee ballots the day after the election (throughout Florida). How can they not count all of them? Remember the cry in 2000, Al Gore wants to discount the vote of the active military? Where is our cry? One million absentee ballots could change the results.

I hope the ACLU appeals this to the Florida Supreme Court. That decision not to count would seem to be a violation of their state constitution (unless that has been changed since 2000).

[Eloriel]

14. Look --

I hate to be obnoxious here, but this isn't about changing the vote or the winner or the President. This is about saving democracy, quite literally.

I don't happen to care who is ultimately the winner, or what it takes to arrive at that final outcome. What I care about -- and what everyone of us must care about first and foremost -- is getting rid of the riggable, unauditable, Republican-owned (Christian Reconstructionist owned!) voting machines.

If we don't, we can kiss democracy goodbye. 'Cause you can't vote 'em out if you didn't vote 'em in. All we will have left, and they WILL allow us to keep that, is the illusion of democracy.

I saw them improve their methods from 2000 to 2002, and now even more so to 2004. In 2000 they learned NOT to let the vote count get so close (it triggers recounts); in 2002 in GA and elsewhere, they learned that if you add in too much, it looks funny -- might not be recounts triggered, but if several days before election polls are too different from "actual" (like in the double digits!), it raises suspicions.

This time, if we don't stop them, they will have learned that they've got to do something better about exit polls and God knows what else. And they'll consolidate their grasp by getting more and more of those confarned machines in various states, etc.

It may be now or never. We must focus everything we've got on this, singlemindedly.

[Samantha]

15. Did you see what I said in #10

pretty much what you said.

[jmowreader]

16. The race is tight enough right now...

that Ohio would flip it completely if it went blue.

[Samantha]

17. Do you think Edwards should speak out

or do the politically correct thing?

[jmowreader]

19. The politically correct thing to do would be to speak out

Yes, I think he should speak out. As of right now, what are his choices? On the morning of January 6, he doesn't have a job. He'll get another one--either as a law professor or an attorney--but right now, he's got no job and a wife who's facing some large medical bills, and if he doesn't speak out we're sure to be dealing with a dictator who has absolutely nothing holding him back. He could even brand John Edwards an enemy combatant and throw him in Gitmo.

[212demop]

7. I was thinking the same thing--

And also wondering why the machines aren't being subpoenaed before the GOP hijacks them.

[Samantha]

11. I am not sure what exactly is being done on all fronts

I am thinking there must be some state law in each state regarding the length of time votes must be preserved. On the other hand, if we are pondering whether this election was "fixed" who exactly do we think will abide by state laws?

[PATRICK]

18. Another forlorn speculation

That Blackwell in the catbird seat has to be hit with something he cannot handle like Harris did. That the campaign knows that and the first order of the day is NOT to run headlong into the wall and get driven into smaller ever hopeless circles like Gore. Unlike Gore they have no physical way or challenging the margin easily. They might get nailed before they even got off the ground. "Would" that is.

We learned also in 2000 that smart lawyers are not the infallible demons society makes them out to be, that the rigged game and the judges can simply counter them with power.