NY 23 may not be over?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Salty, Nov 14, 2009.

  1. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,069
    Likes Received:
    216
    On election night Mr. Hoffman (Conservative) conceded to Mr. Owens (Democratic) as he was more than 5,000 vote behind.
    However, a re-canvas shows that Mr. Hoffman is less than 3,000 votes behind, with over 10,000 absentee ballots (many from Fort Drum GI's) Here is the story from the Syracuse Post-Standard)

    Suppose the final tally shows that Mr Hoffman finally wins.
    Should Mr. Owens resign his house seat? Should any votes he cast in the House of Representatives be voided?

    Note: The NY Board of elections has NOT certified the election, but did officially notify the House leadership of the interim results and the fact Mr. Hoffman did concede.

    Should candidates be careful in the future about premature concessions?

    When I ran, for office, I had determined that I would not conceded if there was any numerical way for me to win. Not that I was trying to be bully, but rather, to me every last voter counts.

    Thoughts?
     
  2. just-want-peace

    just-want-peace
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    5,502
    Likes Received:
    40

    Based on the possibility here, all the "loyal"(?) opposition would have to do is flood the precincts with all manner of votes for their candidate and elicit a concession from the other.

    If then, the "fraud" was discovered, what would then be the result?

    1) nullify the results and create a firestorm of protests from the cheating side
    2) ignore the finding and HOPEFULLY create a firestorm from the losing side
    3) some other action that I can't think of right now, that will alienate everybody or nobody.

    Best scenario - NO DECLARED WINNER UNTIL VOTES ARE ALL IN AND CERTIFIED AS LEGITIMATE.

    However, with the MSM slobbering for a lib victory, jumping to conclusions will always be just around the corner when needed.
     
  3. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,069
    Likes Received:
    216
    No fraud is being considered. Just a problem with proper reporting of vote count.
     
  4. Walguy

    Walguy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2002
    Messages:
    525
    Likes Received:
    1
    Correct. Fraud only starts happening when the DEMOCRAT loses a close one (such as Minnesota last year).
     
  5. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,069
    Likes Received:
    216
    So, now that we have details out of the way, does someone want to answer the OP questions?

    Salty
     
  6. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    Absolutely. The Socialists have a chokehold on this nation, and they are desperate to tighten their grip. If one running against a Democrat thinks that the election won't be rife with fraud, then he's a fool and shouldn't be in the running anyway.

    A conservative candidate needs to fight dirty. It's unfortunate, but that's the fight the Democrats brought us.
     
  7. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    He/she shouldn't if such a candidate is a Christian.
     
  8. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    You did exactly right in my opinion. Anything that demands a complete and accurate vote is what is needed. This election is significant in that it gives a real choice instead of the usual liberal Democrat vs liberal Republican.

    I do have one question. Does a concession by a candidate have any legal meaning?
     
  9. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    My guess is no. It is just a speech,
     
  10. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes. We all remember the great scandal of the 2000 Presidential election with Florida.

    The Democrats tried everything in the book, claiming that the ballots and voting machines were designed so that Democrats cast false ballots.

    I grew up in Florida and voted many times. The voting machines were very easy to operate and understand. If you could not understand these simple machines, you probably shouldn't be voting in the first place.

    I heard a comedian comment on the elderly having trouble with these machines. He pointed out that these same folks who could not figure out how to cast the correct ballot were the same people who can keep up with 18 Bingo cards at once. :laugh:

    And only Democrats had difficulty voting properly, what does that tell you about Democrats? :laugh:

    But as for the OP, I am not sure what you should do, I would think there were already laws on the books that cover this type of situation, and you would have to follow the law.

    It seems difficult to believe that once a person concedes an election that the results could be reversed. Perhaps there is a time period where election results can be challanged and reversed. I am sure this varies by state.

    If law allows you to challange the results of the election, go for it.
     
    #10 Winman, Nov 15, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 15, 2009

Share This Page

Loading...