pudge's Journal: Crucifixion?

In the recent governor election contest, the judge took away four votes from Rossi, because four felons testified for the Democrats that they voted -- illegally -- for Rossi.

Some people are saying this is meaningful, because Rossi lost votes. But it's not. The Democrats scoured and found only those four people to try to make a bogus point about the statistical method the GOP was using. The Republicans didn't even bother trying, because the case could not be won or lost that way.

But worse was that their word was trusted at all. The felons had three options:

• Tell the truth about whom they voted for. This hurts themselves by taking away their vote, and hurts the candidate they voted.
• Say nothing. This neither hurts nor helps anyone.
• Lie about whom they voted for. This gives them, effectively, two votes, as they steal a vote from a legal voter for the other candidate, and lets their own vote stand.

The judge and Democratic lawyers actually believe the felons would come clean, despite having no reason to do so, and every reason to simply not testify, or -- if they are so inclined -- lie.

It brings to mind the old crucifixion sketch from Life of Brian.

Lawyer: Gregoire voter?
Felonious Gregoire Voter: Er, no, Rossi actually.
Lawyer: What?
Voter: Yeah, they said since I voted for Rossi, a vote for him would be taken away.
Lawyer: Oh, I say, that's very nice. Well, then.
Voter: No, I'm just pulling your leg, it's Gregoire, really.

Wait a minute...

[RailGunner]

Did these felons have any evidence to prove they voted for Rossi (or at all)? Without a shred of evidence to back up their claim, and since their already felons so perjury probably isn't a big concern for them, why would they remove votes for Rossi? (This is Chewbacca..)

Still, have to give the Dems some credit: "Recount until you win" worked for them this time. Glad it didn't in 2000...

Re:Wait a minute...

[buffer-overflowed]

No one should have any evidence how they voted. That's the way the system works, so you can't BUY/SELL votes, or be punished for who you voted for.

Gregoire

[nocomment]

Now if only Gregoire would move off to a nice Island somewhere.

Eh?

[ces]

The Democratic judges and lawyers actually believe the felons would come clean, despite having no reason to do so, and every reason to simply not testify, or -- if they are so inclined -- lie.

Democratic judge? WTF? Any proof that Bridges is a Democrat?

Second, why is the assumption that felons must have voted for Gregoire?

Yea so we have to take the felons word for who they say they voted for, but that is the same for any other voter. It is also the same for any other sort of court evedence where you have

Re:Eh?

[pudge]

Democratic judge? WTF? Any proof that Bridges is a Democrat?

My bad, it was late, and I erred. I was going to say Democratic lawyers, and then mentioned the judge, and it came out wrong. I will fix momentarily.

Second, why is the assumption that felons must have voted for Gregoire?

I made no such assumption. My assumption is that we have no reason to believe they voted for Rossi. They said they did, but they have plenty of incentive to lie.

Yea so we have to take the felons word for who they say the

Re:Eh?

[ces]

Ok, but what about the felon who claimed they voted for the Libertarian canidate. Was this person lying or telling the truth? Should their testimony be treated any different than the felons who claimed they voted for Rossi?

Re:Eh?

[pudge]

Ok, but what about the felon who claimed they voted for the Libertarian canidate. Was this person lying or telling the truth?

My point doesn't change: we don't know.

Should their testimony be treated any different than the felons who claimed they voted for Rossi?

Of course not. We don't know if they are telling the truth. We can't take their word for it.

Re:Eh?

[dexterpexter]

Do remember that one of the felons who testified claimed they voted for the Libertarian Benett. How does that help Gregoire or hurt Rossi?

I am not commenting on this specific situation directly, and do not know the intentions, but in a general sense this is actually a very good social engineering tactic.

I believe one purpose of bringing in someone that offsets a position otherwise entirely in your favor, is that you gain the illusion of being fair. A slightly different example, this is often why the bes

Re:Eh?

[ces]

I believe one purpose of bringing in someone that offsets a position otherwise entirely in your favor, is that you gain the illusion of being fair. A slightly different example, this is often why the best liars implicate themselves in minor offenses, to make the appearance that they intend to be honest and do what is fair, even if it isn't entirely favorable to them.

Very true, though I didn't follow the details of the case close enough to know if this is what the Democrats were trying to do. I suspect at