Anyone who doesn't understand the US Presidential election yet...

Here's the story, as near as I can tell.

Bush is leading in Ohio by 130,000 votes.

The Ohio Secretary of State believes there are between 170,000 and 250,000 provisional ballots cast.

What's a provisional ballot? Well, when the state has screwed up, and is unable to determine if a person is eligible to vote, something that you'd expect *ANY* democracy to be able to determine, a provisional ballot is given. It's not counted immediately; there seems to be some confusion about whether it needs to be counted at all. The grand plan is that, if a provisional ballot turns out to have been cast by someone who is eligible to vote, *AND* who voted at the correct place (and polling places can be confusing in the US - sometimes the polling place right across the street from your house is not your polling place), it will be counted towards the total.

(Please note: if you're voting at the wrong place, and are properly registered, usually the friendly poll workers will give you directions to the nearest polling place. Notice how a minor glitch in registration, with the presumed 'safety net' of provisional balloting, could lead to ballots cast in the wrong place... and hence, discarded.)

The Republicans were trying to challenge voters, which may have led to a large increase in the casting of provisional ballots. (That the Republicans tried to get people off the rolls in Ohio, that the Secretary of State, who is a Republican, tried to reject registrations based upon it not being printed on the proper weight of paper - I suppose he thinks democracy is only worth the paper it's printed on! - are all on the record, and historical facts.)

Two news networks have called Ohio for Bush. If they are correct, he has enough electoral votes to win the election.

However, with a lead of 130,000 votes, and maybe 250,000 provisional ballots, it should be clear that the election is *not* decided yet... especially not if, as I'm sure the Democrats suspect, a super-majority of those 250,000 provisional ballots were cast by Democrats.

This even holds true if the lower estimates (of 170,000) hold true.

The question is, which votes will be counted?

There are more important questions in my mind, however.

What kind of man would want to win the Presidency without making double damn sure that every single valid vote *was* counted fairly?

Could you trust a man who doesn't want to make sure that he was chosen properly, in accordance with the will of the people?

What would it say if a man was more interested in winning, than in making sure the right man won?

The notion of "models" has been in my mind, recently. We can't ever know what a person is actually thinking; we can only guess based upon their behavior.

I have a feeling that we're going to see George W. Bush declare victory, and his supporters claim that a desire to count the votes is an attempt to steal the election.

See which model fits better... decent honorable man, who is double damn sure that every valid vote was counted, or power-hungry person who cares more for keeping his office than whether he won it fairly.

I don't know which model will fit his behavior yet. It might well be that he will play it straight this time, and demand the counting of every valid vote. But keep a cynical eye towards him. Remeber, this is politics, and politics is dirty.

Anyone who doesn't understand the US Presidential election yet...

Here's the story, as near as I can tell.

Bush is leading in Ohio by 130,000 votes.

The Ohio Secretary of State believes there are between 170,000 and 250,000 provisional ballots cast.

What's a provisional ballot? Well, when the state has screwed up, and is unable to determine if a person is eligible to vote, something that you'd expect *ANY* democracy to be able to determine, a provisional ballot is given. It's not counted immediately; there seems to be some confusion about whether it needs to be counted at all. The grand plan is that, if a provisional ballot turns out to have been cast by someone who is eligible to vote, *AND* who voted at the correct place (and polling places can be confusing in the US - sometimes the polling place right across the street from your house is not your polling place), it will be counted towards the total.

(Please note: if you're voting at the wrong place, and are properly registered, usually the friendly poll workers will give you directions to the nearest polling place. Notice how a minor glitch in registration, with the presumed 'safety net' of provisional balloting, could lead to ballots cast in the wrong place... and hence, discarded.)

The Republicans were trying to challenge voters, which may have led to a large increase in the casting of provisional ballots. (That the Republicans tried to get people off the rolls in Ohio, that the Secretary of State, who is a Republican, tried to reject registrations based upon it not being printed on the proper weight of paper - I suppose he thinks democracy is only worth the paper it's printed on! - are all on the record, and historical facts.)

Two news networks have called Ohio for Bush. If they are correct, he has enough electoral votes to win the election.

However, with a lead of 130,000 votes, and maybe 250,000 provisional ballots, it should be clear that the election is *not* decided yet... especially not if, as I'm sure the Democrats suspect, a super-majority of those 250,000 provisional ballots were cast by Democrats.

This even holds true if the lower estimates (of 170,000) hold true.

The question is, which votes will be counted?

There are more important questions in my mind, however.

What kind of man would want to win the Presidency without making double damn sure that every single valid vote *was* counted fairly?

Could you trust a man who doesn't want to make sure that he was chosen properly, in accordance with the will of the people?

What would it say if a man was more interested in winning, than in making sure the right man won?

The notion of "models" has been in my mind, recently. We can't ever know what a person is actually thinking; we can only guess based upon their behavior.

I have a feeling that we're going to see George W. Bush declare victory, and his supporters claim that a desire to count the votes is an attempt to steal the election.

See which model fits better... decent honorable man, who is double damn sure that every valid vote was counted, or power-hungry person who cares more for keeping his office than whether he won it fairly.

I don't know which model will fit his behavior yet. It might well be that he will play it straight this time, and demand the counting of every valid vote. But keep a cynical eye towards him. Remeber, this is politics, and politics is dirty.

(no subject)

There's been a lot of anger on LJ, I've heard.

I'm not quite angry... I'm upset.

The exit polls gave me hope, and I saw that go away.

See, the biggest thing is the Supreme Court. Roe v. Wade is a single vote away from being overturned, and with two or three votes, a whole bunch of civil rights issues are at risk.

But what hurts more is the battle of ideas, and the way in which it was lost.

But I still have hope.

I think that if the Democrats stop letting the Republicans get away with claiming morality means "going to church and beating back the homosexuals", we can bring back a balance of power. The United States of America was never meant to be a Christian Nation, but it is populated with a Christian people (in general), and the difference has to be emphasized. You can't deny the Christianity of the people, nor the value they place on it... but you don't have to surrender to letting that be part of the government.

I think if people reach out, and engage, and start fighting to seduce the nation with new ideas *now*, we might have a chance to make a difference.

A lot of its in the wording, and the presentation... and in the awakening of a spirit that's not always all that strong, but is always present.

But just yesterday, I made a determination to do a lot of writing this month... and I'm not going to stop.

(Anyone who has any ideas on how to market political essays to get them into the public eye, I'd love to hear them. Yes, I'll be getting back to my 'blog, but I don't know if that'll be enough.)

(no subject)

There's been a lot of anger on LJ, I've heard.

I'm not quite angry... I'm upset.

The exit polls gave me hope, and I saw that go away.

See, the biggest thing is the Supreme Court. Roe v. Wade is a single vote away from being overturned, and with two or three votes, a whole bunch of civil rights issues are at risk.

But what hurts more is the battle of ideas, and the way in which it was lost.

But I still have hope.

I think that if the Democrats stop letting the Republicans get away with claiming morality means "going to church and beating back the homosexuals", we can bring back a balance of power. The United States of America was never meant to be a Christian Nation, but it is populated with a Christian people (in general), and the difference has to be emphasized. You can't deny the Christianity of the people, nor the value they place on it... but you don't have to surrender to letting that be part of the government.

I think if people reach out, and engage, and start fighting to seduce the nation with new ideas *now*, we might have a chance to make a difference.

A lot of its in the wording, and the presentation... and in the awakening of a spirit that's not always all that strong, but is always present.

But just yesterday, I made a determination to do a lot of writing this month... and I'm not going to stop.

(Anyone who has any ideas on how to market political essays to get them into the public eye, I'd love to hear them. Yes, I'll be getting back to my 'blog, but I don't know if that'll be enough.)