Re-Vote OHIO

[VTGold]

Good article for the uninformed or non-believing. Info on went wrong in OHIO - from soup to nuts.

I've snipped the why and how to re-vote - but read the whole article for a lay-out of many of the crimes that took place - nicely done.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=90&ItemID=6944

(snip)
“Our next governor should enter office without any doubt about the legitimacy of his or her office. The people of Washington deserve to know that their governor was elected fair and square. Unfortunately, the events of the past few weeks now make it impossible for you or me to take office on January 12 without being shrouded in suspicion.”

-Dino Rossi, Republican candidate for Governor of Washington, in open letter to Democratic candidate Christine Gregoire Rossi’s argument is equally applicable to the Presidential election. Following an extremely flawed and probably illegal “recount” in Ohio, no one can say for sure who won that state’s 20 Electoral College votes, and these 20 votes are necessary for either George Bush or John Kerry to claim a victory in the 2004 election.

Following the example of the people of the Ukraine, we should demand that Ohio’s 5.5 million voters be given a chance to vote for president again in a fair and transparent process.



(snip)
Indeed, there are 48 million voters in the Ukraine and only 5.5 million in Ohio, so the process would be ten times easier.

How Could a Fair Re-Vote Take Place?

If the voting processes are so fundamentally flawed, you ask, how could we trust a new re-vote?

Simple.

A

paper ballot can be easily produced with the names of the presidential candidates on it.

Every voter will hand in one piece of paper with a check mark next to one candidate’s name, and another piece of paper with his or her name, address, and other necessary voter registration information.

These two piles will be kept in case a recount is needed.

Observers from the various presidential campaigns should be allowed to monitor the 88 county election proceedings, and we also may want to bring in some international election observers comparable to those who supervised the election in the Ukraine.

President Bush can issue a call for a re-vote himself, following the lead of Dino Rossi in Washington State. He can declare that he wants to be elected by a fair and transparent process.

Or Congress can demand a re-vote when it convenes to receive the Electoral votes on January 6, 2005. If neither of those take place, it is imperative that the mushrooming pro-democracy movement that has been developing since the elections escalate its pressure and its tactics to reflect the urgency of what is at stake. We must assert out Tenth Amendment power to reclaim our right to a fair election in Ohio and a fairly elected President of the United States.

If we let this one go by without the political fight of our lifetimes, we just might have kissed what’s left of our democracy goodbye.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Junkdrawer]

2. Yep. The Ukraine has a much more advanced democracy than ours...

:(

[understandinglife]

7. Indeed. They've recently proven that to be true...

....probably because they never say 'never' for starters. ;-)

Us dang dissidents never say 'never' either excepting in our response to the '4 more years of shrubber' chant......

Peace.

"Its 7 Jan 2005: do you know who your president is?"

[txindy]

11. If the fascists have their way, you're right.

Welcome to DU.

[bemis12]

3. There's a procedure outlined

in a law for dealing with a contested election. There's no mention of "revote" in these laws. That's why it can't happen.

[politicasista]

4. Isn't that unconstitutional?

You may have to spike *'s punch to get him to agree to it.

[DoYouEverWonder]

9. Actually the constitution recommends

revolting.

[Not a Sheep]

5. A "re-vote" in Ohio can't happen as other replies have pointed out. /eom

[Chimpanzee]

24. Thank you for reiterating that point.

:eyes:

[MellowOne]

6. If we all say NEVER

then it will NEVER happen. But if we believe and fight for our constitutional rights, we can make it happen. If we give up, they got what they wanted. People who will lay down and not do a damn thing.

I sincerely hope that with all the petitions, letter, emails, etc. will make a difference so we can expose the fraud.

[SicTransit]

23. Your "constitutional rights" do not

include a re-vote for president - so how exactly would your fight for your constitutional rights lead to a re-vote?

[clydefrand]

8. Just suppose it did happen...how would this work?

There would be some people who have died who voted on the 2nd, there would be some who are sick and can't vote; there would be some who have moved and can't vote; there would be some who...who knows the circumstances??

How would it be possible to allow only the initial voters to vote again. Would you allow everyone to vote even those who couldn't/didn't vote before?

[bemis12]

10. Here's how it would work

1. All the Republicans would have to forget that the federal law contains Title 3, Chapter 1, § 15, which deals with the contested election.

2. When challenged they'd scratch their heads and call their lawyers. These lawyers would also have to be unfamiliar with Title 3, Chapter 1, § 15.

3. It would go through the courts, all the way to the US Supreme Court. If none of these judges at any level has ever heard of Title 3, Chapter 1, § 15, we might be in luck and get a revote.

If any of them anywhere along the line know federal election law, we're fucked.

[seriousstan]

12. So you are saying there is still a chance??

[dlaliberte]

14. Revote as if there were never a first vote

The only fair thing to do in a revote is to not be constrained by anything that happened in the first vote. So people who died no longer can vote, while new voters may be allowed, if they are registered in time. Only registered residents at the time of the revote would be allowed to vote, etc.

Yes, the result or a revote would be different from the first vote because of who can turn out, and because of changes of opinions after the first vote. But the difference relative to who *might* have turned out in the first vote, had they been permitted to, should not be very large, and opinions do not change very rapidly. If revotes were required in certain cases, then people would be prepared to accept the fact that the result might be different, and maybe they would be less inclined to participate in any fraudulent activity which might trigger a revote.

A provision for requiring a revote should be in the constitution. A revote should be required when it can be shown that a significant number of voters were denied the ability to vote, or denied having their votes count, enough to have made a difference in the outcome. This would be similar in some ways to the requirements for a recount.

The current provisions in the constitution call for Congress to decide whether to ignore the electoral votes of some states. (I believe that must mean the total number of electoral votes is reduced accordingly, and thus a new number for the required majority is determined.) A revote would be better because otherwise all the voters in such states are ignored, and thus it is advantageous for corrupt people to fraudulently disrupt the elections in states they might lose rather than to win them legitimately. Witness Ohio, where even if Ohio's electoral votes are ignored by Congress due to the fraud, Bush still wins with the remaining electoral votes.

[New Earth]

13. i don't think that will ever happen

and you know i am not a naysayer!!!!

first of all, i don't think there is anything legal to defend having a revote. (i don't know the law, but it just doesnt' sound possible).

also, despite those of us here, those in Ohio working on the investigations....how many people in Ohio do you really think care enough - or even have a clue of the fraud that went on in their state? I would think we need the majority of people in Ohio screaming for a revote themselves for it to be powerful at all, which doesn't seem to be the case :shrug: :(

[MellowOne]

15. But......

What if fraud is proven with undeniable evidence? Does Kerry automatically become president? Or do we do a revote?

[New Earth]

16. THAT

is the question we all have, which we do not have an answer to at this time :shrug: I guess time will tell....but yeah, i guess if fraud is proven indesputably, maybe then a revote would be an option :shrug:

but then the only problem with that is - proof of fraud in Ohio would put all the other states into question, and only having Ohio revote wouldn't be fair to the rest of the states, so then we could have a revote in all the states :shrug:

but wtf - that would mean getting everyone out to vote again....i don't know how well that would work out....

[bemis12]

17. The House and Senate

would choose who becomes President. On the 6th.

[politicasista]

18. They are probably scared of Smirky

so they would not vote him out would they?

[bemis12]

19. If fraud is proven

in the next 5 days, and it's shown that Bush was involved, I believe they would.

[jdog]

20. Rather than a re-vote, I thought it was addressed in the Constitution

that anywhere where there was voter disenfranchisement, those regions would not have their votes counted. Remember that guy at the Conyer's hearings who was saying to invoke our constitutional rights in that way?

The Ohio electoral votes are not legitimate anymore. They CANNOT be included in the total. Isn't that really the only direction this can go if a Senator signs on (other than this whole thing being just a show and * just taking office again)?

[bemis12]

21. Not exactly

Even IF it were found that they had intentionally disenfranchised voters:

1. It would reduce their electors for future elections, not this one.

2. It would only reduce their electors by perhaps one elector. It doesn't invalidate all of them.

[jdog]

22. Where is this information?

Can you give me a link so I can read it? I've tried to find it myself and haven't been able to. thanks.

[bemis12]

25. It's the 14th Amendment to the Constitution

Section 2.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/

Quite obviously, it's dealing with "denying" that right to vote, i.e. taking away their right to vote. This issue isn't going to fly. It also obviously reduces the representation of the state. That would result in fewer electors in the next election.

This is another one of those items that's brought up with great fanfare, but nothing will come of it.

[jdog]

26. Thanks for the info.

So, if we can't exclude Ohio's electoral votes, and we can't require a re-vote, are we asking a Senator(s) to put his/her career on the line for a symbolic gesture? Surely there has to be some other option?