Asymmetrical Information

How about:

Bush wins re-re-re-re-count...women and minorities hardest hit.

BTW...I was watching the Amazon donation counter, it just broke 1 million while I refreshed.

Not bad for a bunch of stingy Americans (and other Western nations.)

Personally, I like "Ohio voters not QUITE as dumb as originally thought"

300 votes into $1M plus for the recount. Makes Florida seem like a bargain.

Conspiracy theorists are never embarrassed and never notice egg on their faces, they merely uncover new layers of conspiracy.

Two nights ago I heard someone on PBS complaining that the election results in Ohio certainly were fixed by the Republicans -- the irrefutable evidence being that the lines of people waiting to vote were _longer_ in districts that voted Democratic than those that went Republican. So there _had_ to have been more Democratic votes!

The other person on the show said: every voting district in Ohio has bipartisan board-of-election managers to run the machines and count the votes, half Democratic and half Republican. Are you saying those Democrats were part of the Republican conspiracy?

The first guy said, _Just look at the evidence of those lines!_

As long as a significant number of Democrats keep thinking this way they will never win another election.

BTW, this is the one-year anniversary of Krugman's: "Al Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean was a momentous event."

Okrent hasn't gotten him to print a correction yet.

I feel better knowing that Kerry was much closer than we originally thought. However, I bet for another million dollars, Bush could cut into that 300 votes! Maybe even pick up 20 or 30 or more. Thanks to Algore for these continuing wastes of taxpayer money. From now on, all recounts should be paid for by the challenger.

I feel better knowing that Kerry was much closer than we originally thought. However, I bet for another million dollars, Bush could cut into that 300 votes! Maybe even pick up 20 or 30 or more. Thanks to Algore for these continuing wastes of taxpayer money. From now on, all recounts should be paid for by the challenger.

My understanding is that unless the recount is mandatory (e.g. the first one in FL in 2000 because it was so close) it is usually paid for by the challenger (or whomever is requesting the recount). At least that’s the way it’s done in Minnesota and apparently Florida. Does anyone know if it is done differently in Ohio?

*Scott comes in and listens carefully*

Someone want to call an exterminator and clear all of the crickets out of the portside of this comments section? ]:-)

"C" is the only correct answer. "A" is a non-starter. Obviously, if the media is reporting, there is something to report here. "B" is wrong on two counts. One, the originally tally was not accurate, depending on the degree of accuracy you want. It did incorrectly state Bush's margin of victory. The second part of Conspiracy theorists being embarrassed is wrong, too. They are almost never embarrassed and will find a way to discredit this count too, or at least try to. As for we like eggs, I have no way of knowing if they do or not. "C" at least provides 100% correct information.

(c) may have been the headline online, but the national edition on paper had the "We like eggs" headline. Guess they thought that would boost sales in flyover country.

These results are a great relief. I guess we don't need to worry about all those strange things that happened. So what if a few voting machines counted backwards? We know what the voters wanted, and we got it!

Eamon - correct but inaccurate! Seriously, 300 votes is about as close as you could reasonably expect to get. You have abnormally high accuracy standards.

Lonewacko - "good and hard" as Mencken said.

Well, Grinch, there's momentous and there's momentous. On the Krugman scale, Gore's endorsement of Dean was probably somewhat less momentous than Enron, but still more momentous than 9/11.

What a big waste of the taxpayers' money!

Unless the Democrats paid for it, then it's good because there's less mony in the campaign coffers for the next election.

The change wasn't even as big as your fraction suggested. The proper comparison is 300 votes out of the 5 million plus votes, not the original margin.

The margin of victory has chanegd by .00005 or .005%.

To put it in perspective, if Bush and Kerry had been running a one mile race in Ohio, the original election results had Bush winning by 111 feet. The recount reduced his margin by three inches.

A question to all Bush supporters: How do you know the results are accurate? Will you only join the 'paper receipts for all voting machines' crusade when your candidate has lost in preceincts that exit polled as a win?

How exactly does one recount the results of a Diebold electronic voting machine with no paper record to substantiate the tally?

--Cobra

Posted mostly because I have been feeling like a gadfly lately.

Lisa Rein's Report On Election 2004's Ohio Recount and Voting Fraud Situation

I think Bush won. But, I also think that openness in all the processes of government is one of the most important assets of democracy.

And to Liberarian Girl: The recount was paid for by the Green and Libertarian parties out of private donations.

"And to Liberarian Girl: The recount was paid for by the Green and Libertarian parties out of private donations."

Nope, the majority of the funds were provided by the citizens (suckers?) of Ohio. The "private donations" covered only a tenth of the total cost.

Comments are Closed.