The Fat Lady has Not Sung Yet

[afchic]

Interesting turn of events in NY Distrcit 23!!!

Official: "Owens Will Have to Be Removed"
Northern NY News
Written by Nathan Barker
Thursday, 12 November 2009 11:29
GOUVERNEUR, NY - Despite the fact that Bill Owens has already been sworn-in and has voted on crucial legislation in the House of Representatives, he may not have actually won the NY-23 Congressional Special Election.

Several errors were made during the initial vote counts. Over 2,000 votes for contender Doug Hoffman were not counted in the preliminary results, narrowing the current vote gap to less than 3,000 votes between Democrat Bill Owens and Conservative Doug Hoffman.

The errors were discovered during the standard vote recanvas that has been underway since November 4th. The largest error occurred in Oswego County where the vote recanvas found a discrepancy of more than 1,200 votes in Doug Hoffman's favor. Another error, in Jefferson County contributed an additional 700 votes in Hoffman's favor during the recount.

The election was close enough even on election night that the New York State Board of Elections was unable to present a "clear decision" in the race according to John Conklin, Communications Director for the department. He said that the Board sent a letter to the Clerk of the House of Representatives in Washington indicating that they could not yet determine a winner and could therefore not certify the election until after the recanvas and absentee ballot count. Those final numbers will not be available until at least mid-December.

Nancy Pelosi was only able to legally swear-in Bill Owens because Doug Hoffman had conceded the election, indicating that he did not contest the initial, and now shown erroneous, results, something he may not have done if he had been aware of how close the election was.

Mr. Hoffman told the Gouverneur Times that he felt at the time that he "was being a good sport" in doing so. With 93% of the polls in and counted and a margin of over 5,000 votes in favor of Owens, he felt he had lost the election. He now says that "while hindsight is 20/20, if I had known it was that close, I probably would have waited."

Bill Owens was sworn in 2 days later and proceeded to vote in favor of Pelosi's health care bill the following day. While Mr. Hoffman feels that deliberately contesting the results of the election to prevent Owens' deciding vote in the Health Care bill would "not have been very sportsmanlike," and that he, personally, would not like to see a politician manipulate events in that manner, he also indicated that the good of the American people and the citizens of the 23rd district would have weighed in on that decision as well.

As it stands now, Bill Owens may be in Washington and voting the Pelosi Party line but when the vote is certified he may be ousted. The state Board of Elections indicated that "...all ballots will be counted, and if the result changes, Owens will have to be removed." Concession speech or not, if the voters in the 23rd District elected Doug Hoffman and not Bill Owens, then Hoffman will be the Representative.

There are currently over 10,000 uncounted absentee ballots, many of which were in the military where a strongly conservative bias exists. Given the narrow margin of Owens' lead at this time, it's entirely possible that this race could still swing for Hoffman.

Sources indicate that the Democrats would not have had the votes to pass the Health bill if Owens had not been sworn-in and pledged his support for it. Several other Representatives have indicated that they would not have cast their votes in favor of the bill if they were not certain that it had the votes to win.

[nmap]

Well, well! Great news, Afchic. Thank you!

[longrange1947]

The Dims will not allow it.

[afchic]

Originally Posted by longrange1947

The Dims will not allow it.

May not have a choice. If it is found that 10K ballots from overseas troops weren't counted, in a heavily conservative area, they wouldn't be able to stand the heat.

[kimberly]

So that should render the vote on the health bill moot and it will have to be done over.

Obama will start stuttering again and Pelosi will have to sit down and be quiet.

It will also wipe the smirk off the dems faces.

[Razor]

This is an excellent lesson in why you DON'T EVER QUIT! What is up with pols conceeding elections lately? Its not like hanging in there until the last vote is counted takes any more effort than quitting at the first sign of trouble.

[kimberly]

Originally Posted by Razor

This is an excellent lesson in why you DON'T EVER QUIT! What is up with pols conceeding elections lately? Its not like hanging in there until the last vote is counted takes any more effort than quitting at the first sign of trouble.

Originally Posted by afchic

Interesting turn of events in NY Distrcit 23!!!

Mr. Hoffman told the Gouverneur Times that he felt at the time that he "was being a good sport" in doing so. With 93% of the polls in and counted and a margin of over 5,000 votes in favor of Owens, he felt he had lost the election. He now says that "while hindsight is 20/20, if I had known it was that close, I probably would have waited."

Bill Owens was sworn in 2 days later and proceeded to vote in favor of Pelosi's health care bill the following day. While Mr. Hoffman feels that deliberately contesting the results of the election to prevent Owens' deciding vote in the Health Care bill would "not have been very sportsmanlike," and that he, personally, would not like to see a politician manipulate events in that manner, he also indicated that the good of the American people and the citizens of the 23rd district would have weighed in on that decision as well.

I agree.

Hoffman seems concerned about sportsmanship, but even when the little league team is down by 20 runs, kids are taught to play out the game in the name of sportsmanship.

[lksteve]

Originally Posted by kimberly

...but even when the little league team is down by 20 runs, kids are taught to play out the game in the name of sportsmanship.

Actually, in the leagues I coached or helped out with, there was a ten run "slaughter" rule...seems to be where folks get the notion that surrendering early is sporting...personally, I don't think candidates should concede until all the votes are counted...there is no sportsmanship involved...they should ignore the pundits and all the folks seeking instant gratification who want a result before they head off to bed...the news outlets that call elections before all the votes are counted are doing nothing but boosting their ratings...

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by kimberly

So that should render the vote on the health bill moot and it will have to be done over.

Why? Based on what precedent or interpretation of Rule XX do you base this argument?

Originally Posted by Razor

What is up with pols conceding elections lately? Its not like hanging in there until the last vote is counted takes any more effort than quitting at the first sign of trouble.

Originally Posted by lksteve

Personally, I don't think candidates should concede until all the votes are counted...there is no sportsmanship involved...they should ignore the pundits and all the folks seeking instant gratification who want a result before they head off to bed...the news outlets that call elections before all the votes are counted are doing nothing but boosting their ratings...

My take is that conceding an election while the counting of votes is in process is a tribute to the "Revolution of 1800." By conceding on the night of the election, a losing candidate starts at the earliest moment the process of reunifying the political landscape.

(And I think Mr. Hoffman was taking a dig at Mr. Franken and Mr. Gore for their behavior in recent electoral disputes.)

My $0.02.

[kimberly]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Why? Based on what precedent or interpretation of Rule XX do you base this argument?

My $0.02.

If Owens is not the legitimate office holder, his vote should not count leaving a hole that needs to be filled by the rightful victor.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by kimberly

If Owens is not the legitimate office holder, his vote should not count leaving a hole that needs to be filled by the rightful victor.

The question remains unanswered.

Do you have in mind specific rules of the House of Representatives or precedents to support your argument not only that a sitting representative's vote should be discounted but also that his replacement--who, as pointed out in the article, conceded--should be allowed to vote?

[Fiercely Loyal]

Originally Posted by afchic

Nancy Pelosi was only able to legally swear-in Bill Owens because Doug Hoffman had conceded the election, indicating that he did not contest the initial, and now shown erroneous, results, something he may not have done if he had been aware of how close the election was.

concede:to accept as true, valid, or accurate

It seems to me that if you are to concede that would be the same as dropping out of the race. So even if you are later to be found the person with the most votes you still dropped out making the person who you conceded to the primary office holder.

I want Pelosi care gone but I would have to get a better explanation to understand how pulling Owens out is legal if Hoffman conceded.

[longrange1947]

Originally Posted by Fiercely Loyal

concede:to accept as true, valid, or accurate

It seems to me that if you are to concede that would be the same as dropping out of the race. So even if you are later to be found the person with the most votes you still dropped out making the person who you conceded to the primary office holder.

I want Pelosi care gone but I would have to get a better explanation to understand how pulling Owens out is legal if Hoffman conceded.

So Gore conceding should have meant that the recount upon recount should not have happen?

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by longrange1947

So Gore conceding should have meant that the recount upon recount should not have happen?

IIRC, Mr. Gore called "mulligan" and unconceded his concession. When you do stuff like invent the internet and find a cure for global warming in which you can still heat your mansion, fly in private jets, and talk about yourself endlessly, you all sorts of rights and privileges and can thumb your nose at your nation's political history.

Is there a formal process of conceding in state and federal elections?

If the outcome of the state election and the House vote were reversed would we be as open to the possibility of changing the outcome of either contest?

[plato]

Originally Posted by Fiercely Loyal

concede:to accept as true, valid, or accurate

It seems to me that if you are to concede that would be the same as dropping out of the race. So even if you are later to be found the person with the most votes you still dropped out making the person who you conceded to the primary office holder.

I want Pelosi care gone but I would have to get a better explanation to understand how pulling Owens out is legal if Hoffman conceded.

The media has focused so much on the rise and fall of political parties that we tend to look at the wrong target quite often. Who did the people elect?

I see no reason that the person receiving the most votes isn't the elected official. What one politician says to another is of less interest.