Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Campbell Recount Volunteer Training, etc.

Late notice, I know, but this was in my mailbox yesterday:


The recount will start on Wednesday, Dec. 13, at 9:00 AM sharp and is expected to continue all day Wednesday and Thursday, 9:00 AM through 5:00 PM each day. Don McTigue, Esq., our election law attorney, will conduct the training session on Tuesday evening, Dec. 12, at 7:00 PM at his office at 3886 North High Street, Columbus, OH. Even if you have served as a recount observer previously, it is very important to attend this training session so that you will know exactly what we are focusing upon.


Contact the Campbell Campaign for more info.

9 comments:

Political Outcast said...

Seriously, she should have the 'shining' example of Mary Jo Kilroy and concede. You lost.

bonobo said...

P.O.,
Kilroy wanted a recount, the votes were recounted, Pryce was declared the winner, and Kilroy congratulated her.

What part of that process did you find problematic?

Bev Campbell said...

Apparently, what Political Outcast does not, or chooses not, to understand is the counting every vote principle. Why is it that the "conservatives", the status quo people, the people who believe that we should be left to "govern" ourselves and that the "government" should not interfere just cannot seem to get that principle???

These are the same people who are now trying to gut the minimum wage bill that was passed by the voters??? Why is it ok for that group to be so hypocritical that they now try to overcome the will of the people expressed at the polls and impose THEIR will upon everyone??? Well, those are the same people that appear to be scared to death of counting every vote!

I assure you, Political Outcast, that once every single legitimate vote is counted, I will rest...but not until then! We must, at the very least, provide the same election integrity to the USA that we provide to Iraq.

Oh, and one more thing, somehow I suspect that in the right circumstances you would be one of the very first in line to avail yourself of the many social safetynets that Mary Jo's hard work as a Commissioner has made possible for you.

Political Outcast said...

I have no problem with the process. I just do not like Mary Jo Kilroy, hence the sarcasm. Also I would not call what Kilroy did (releasing a PR that does not mention you opponent or not calling your opponent to concede) conseding.

Also to address Ms. Campbell: of course I would, since my tax dollars have been part of the reason why those safteynets that MJK would "make possible" exist.

open mind said...

What this post is missing is the fact that the Price/Kilroy results triggered an official recount. The election laws state that any race with a victory margin of .5% or less is automatically recounted. Ms. Campbell's race did not have that margin. Her paying for a recount just seems laughable.

Anonymous said...

You know, the extent of the mean-spiritedness that surfaces never ceases to amaze me. Apparently, disenfrancisement of the voting public is "laughable" to you. What is it to you if a campaign pays for a recount? Bev Campbell should be commended for be willing to go the distance for the principle of fair and transparent elections - the very framework of not only our democracy, but the "democracies" that we are supposedly "planting" in the middle east.

open mind said...

How does having a recount make it "fair and transparent"? The vast majority of elections were not recounted, were they not "fair and transparent"?

Please also explain your idea that not having a recount would have resulted in "disenfranchisement of the voting public"?

It is very easy to hurl accusations and to pretend to stand on the moral high ground. I am interested in how you respond to my questions. I apologize if I seem to be too mean. My intention was not to hurt anyone's feelings.

That's the second time a person has mentioned the Iraqi elections on this single post. Did you forget to sign in the second time?

bonobo said...

I'll start by saying this: Recounts are more often than not unsuccessful in changing the originally stated outcome of an election. But, anecdotally, they rarely seem to increase the margin. So I see reasons for both pessimism and hope.

Of course, it really seems to me that opponents of the recount see the converse combination of reasons for optimism and fear. If there were no chance of the result changing, it would be nothing to them if Bev paid to have a recount done.

In part this is because problems, when they exist, often happen in clumps. The actual vote margin in this race is much smaller than the overall margin in OH-15, even though it is larger as a percentage. A problem in one precinct could swing a 1/2% of the vote in this race, something that couldn't have happened in OH-15, so I don't really think that flipping a 1% margin in this race is nearly twice as unlikely as flipping .5% in the Kilroy-Pryce contest.

We'll all find out soon enough. In the meantime, thank y'all for playing nice. And BTW, the anonymous post doesn't sound like Bev to me, and if that poster is still following this discussion, please check 'other' and make up a name. It just helps to avoid confusion.

open mind said...

No explanations? No defense for your accusations? Shocker.