Monday, July 10, 2006

The Left and Close Elections

What do you call a very close election where a Democrat wins? A victory for the Democrat. But what do you call it when a Republican wins? The product of fraud, racism and reason for court challenges and calls for re-votes, of course. Ask any Daily Kos-er and they'll tell you that they expect the Republican to concede, because in their arrogance, the left believes that holding the reins of power is their birthright. But after watching Mexico's recent election, it is most relieving to see that the United States does not have a monopoly on leftist nuts.

By all reasonable accounts, it appears that Felipe Calderon, the conservative won the election by just under a quarter million votes out of about 41 million over the leftist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (or as I like to call him, "Lopez Algore"). Lopez Obrador's first order of business as the guy falling behind in the court is to ask for a recount. And after the recount didn't put him over the top, he is now mounting a challenge in the courts, which he will maintain until he wins or runs out of options. But the problem is that this is not how fair play is supposed to work.

Elections are held, and the result comes down to a number. The side with the biggest number wins. That number is determined by a finite number of votes properly cast. It is certainly legitimate to order a recount of ballots in a very close election. But once the number is determined, that's all the contoversy that there needs to be. The side with the smaller number needs to throw up their hands and concede, or at the very least if ego and sour grapes prevent an appropriate concession, just a simple exit from the scene. But leftists have made a habit of contesting close elections, appealing to racial politics, accusing the other side of fraud and all sorts of horrible acts that turned the election ever so slightly their way. In other words, it's not about winning the vote--unless that's how they happen to win fairly--it's just about winning, period, regardless of the tactic.

But in Mexico, things are a tad different. It tends to have a much more homogenous population than the United States, so the race card won't be that effective an approach. It also recently updated its election system which very nicely ensured the integrity of their votes. And by some accounts I have seen, their system is superior to ours, which says much about our commitment to avoid another Florida 2000 or Washington Governor 2004. So the Mexican Al Gore is left to argue, as he probably meant to argue all along, that the election is the product of fraud, with the fact of his loss being the compelling (and probably only) evidence thereof. Which is the core of the problem.

There are times when an election result can be legitimately contested such as in 1960 when widespread fraud under the supervision of Mayor Dailey in Chicago likely turned Illinois, and the election to Kennedy. Or any of a number of cute things that Democrats pulled in 2004, none of which ended up winning them the election. But the now-habit of preparing court challenges any time that an election is close and it's the liberal losing is becoming a hallmark of the arrogant left. And if anyone wants a clue as to how fair the left is, just observe what happened in Washington State, where they used court challenges to change the outcome of a very close election. In short, a combination of cooperative judges and fake ballots kept emerging until the vote count put the Democrat, Christine Gregoire ahead. And the instant that happened, the lost ballots stopped emerging and the court challenges ended--certainly a coincidence that nobody searched for any more lost ballots... The will of the voters was discerned! And we know it was discerned at that stage, because the Democrat came ahead--evidence in and of itself of a proper outcome, if you ask the left.

So please pay attention, as we have another election coming this November. The evidence of fraud boils down to the fact of a Republican victory, or one for the Mexican conservative. Because when a leftist wins, the mantra of "count every vote" seems to disappear.

1 Comments:

Blogger Repack Rider said...

Ask any Daily Kos-er and they'll tell you that they expect the Republican to concede, because in their arrogance, the left believes that holding the reins of power is their birthright.

Okay, I'm a "Kossack," UID #207, and I will assume that this question was directed at me, because I qualify as "any Daily Kos-er," (although I do not pretend to represent any other Kossacks). I will tell you that you are flat-out, 180-degrees, wrong on that.

Now that you know you were wrong on that, will you make appropriate corrections?

10:47 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home