Comments on: Ford or Roland?

By: May Andersen

May Andersen — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:17:07 +0000

Hello webmaster…Thanks for the nice read, keep up the interesting posts..what a nice Friday

By: Stuart Dixon

Stuart Dixon — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:35:59 +0000

Did any candidate get a majority? If not, then go back to school; go to your high school or your children’s high school and work for the adoption of a legitimate voting system that elects by majority in one election every time: instant runoff voting (IRV).

You will never again accept whoever has “the most” after you see how IRV works.

By: Don Johnson

Don Johnson — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:12:33 +0000

Keep in mind that virtually all of the questionable (felons and the un-alive) votes were cast in precincts that went overwhelmingly for Ms. Ford.

Take the (at least) two dead voters in precinct 27-1 for example. On Election day, 27-1 had 32 votes for Ford, and 1 vote for Roland. So we know that one of those dead votes went to Ford and there is a very very high likelyhood that the other one was too.

By: Sean Braisted

Sean Braisted — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:11:52 +0000

I suppose my question is, does Shelby County attach votes with names? I was under the impression votes are anonymous…so I don’t quite understand how the election commision could tell (unless its absentee) how the votes were cast. That is all I meant, I didn’t intend to imply that they poll the district in order to determine the representative, only that the commision shouldn’t assume all illegal votes were cast for Ford, without some sort of proof to back that up. It seemed to me some were suggesting that regardless of proof, they should “punish” Ford by seating her Opponent, and that would be un-democratic.

By: Mark Rogers

Mark Rogers — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 17:39:27 +0000

Sean,

Regarding your first question, the investigation will look into those issues.

Regarding the second, it is immaterial. The only issue is the votes cast by those who turned out for that election. Are you suggesting that we replace voting with polling? Advocates of the use of ’sampling’ for the census come close to this in some ways.

Regarding your third point, probably nothing stops the Senate from refusing to seat someone. Legislative bodies tend to preserve the right to determine their memberships. This is a principle that exists in American government at the federal level. Adam Clayton Powell was refused a seat in the House in the 60s (I think) despite being elected.

You might be interested to know that the only recent example of a duly elected representative in Congress being denied a seat and his opponent seated came in the mid 80s. The Democrats in the House rejected the findings of the Indiana Election Commission on a close race and seated the Democrat. The Republicans were led in a walkout by Newt Gingrich.

Regarding the fourth, if it is determined that enough votes for Ms. Ford were illiegally cast, Roland should win. The only issue is the votes cast at that time, not the sentiment of those who stayed home.

By: Sean Braisted

Sean Braisted — Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:20:41 +0000

First, is there any “proof” that the “dead votes” went to Ford and not Roland?

Second, Is there any Proof that the majority of voters in that district wanted Roland to be their Senator?

Third, What stops the Senate from simply allowing only Republicans (or Democrats), whether elected fairly or not, from joining the State Senate?

Fourth, How would giving the Senate seat to Roland help fix whatever electoral problems there are in Memphis? What happens if the next election is close, does the seat automatically swing in favor of the Republican? and what that district in Memphis have to do in order to be able to pick their own Representative?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:04:59 +0000

Fair point on Carter. It would be a change for him to certify the vote for someone besides a murderous dictator.

But more to the point. The senate controls its own membership, and get decide for itself when an election has been unfair and what the proper course should be. In this case the senate can fix the problem quickly. I firmly believe a re-vote in this case only serves to further empowers the Ford machine. That particular part of our state is politically broken - a fair election cannot be had as long as that machine functions.

In this case there is more than sufficient evidence of monkey business. The senate would be within their rights to seat Roland and tell Ophelia to dig up more dead next time.

By: Sean Braisted

Sean Braisted — Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:07:28 +0000

Although giving the election to a person that did not win the popular vote is all the rage among Republicans, I think the best result of this meeting would be to throw out the results and have a new election (perhaps bring Jimmy Carter up :)). Whether or not Ford, or more likely someone sympathetic to Ford, cheated in this election, the people deserve to have faith in their electoral system, so when in doubt, re-vote.