TexasCHLforum.com

Whether the Republicans or Democrats will control the Texas House in 2009 will be determined by a recount in House District 105. Incumbent Republican Linda Harper-Brown won by a mere 25 votes. Of note is the fact that this race also saw a Libertarian candidate garner 1,059 votes. In this race, both the incumbent Republican and the Democrat challenger are TSRA "A" rated, so that's much better than having a lower rated Democrat. However, we need to remember that the Castle Doctrine was voted out of committee by only one vote, in spite of a huge number of co-sponsors in the House. (I can't recall the precise number, but it was about 130) Who held it up and forced the removal of the "looser pays" provisions? Democrats, that's who. So if the Democrats regain control of the House, they will select the Speaker of the House and there is no reason to believe our agenda will be as well received as in several past sessions.

Chas.

The with a recount imminent, here are the numbers:

• Linda Harper-Brown (R) - 19,833
  Bob Romano (D) - 19,808
  James G. Baird - 1,059

Here is an article about this race and it's significance in terms of control of the House. http://wallaby.telicon.com/library/2008111211.PDF" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Chas.,

When will the recount be complete?

I agree, protest voting is not always the best course. We have to be pragmatic and sometimes vote for the lessor of two evils who has a chance rather than the carbon copy of ourselves who has no chance....

GrillKing wrote:I agree, protest voting is not always the best course. We have to be pragmatic and sometimes vote for the lessor of two evils who has a chance rather than the carbon copy of ourselves who has no chance....

Can you imagine if thirty of the Democrats didn't cast protest votes for the Libertarian.

scoobii wrote:

GrillKing wrote:I agree, protest voting is not always the best course. We have to be pragmatic and sometimes vote for the lessor of two evils who has a chance rather than the carbon copy of ourselves who has no chance....

Can you imagine if thirty of the Democrats didn't cast protest votes for the Libertarian.

I'll bet a dollar to a donut that the Libertarian candidate drew a lot more votes from the Republican candidate. Democrats aren't going to support the Libertarian Party Platform.

Chas.

Hrm. How does one do a "recount" these days? I mean, if the count on the electronic machines changes with a "recount", then we've obviously got bigger issues than one close election.

Anyone care to educate me? I don't see how a ballot count can change with the new technologies that are supposedly flawless.

NcongruNt wrote:Hrm. How does one do a "recount" these days? I mean, if the count on the electronic machines changes with a "recount", then we've obviously got bigger issues than one close election.

Anyone care to educate me? I don't see how a ballot count can change with the new technologies that are supposedly flawless.

I used to teach some of those electronic voting machines.

A "recount" should not change the count, but it can cast the accuracy of the machine into doubt. What is done with the ones I used to teach on, is the machine is audited and the count compared with the numbers of ballots cast. Depending on the machine and the number of votes the granularity can even get down to tallying which votes were cast on which ballot, and if they were paper ballots counted by a machine, they can be counted manually if the audit trail and the machine's count do not match.

Some of the electronic machines (ES&S Ivotronics) keep a printed record of each ballot cast, and these could be compared to the machine's count in a recount, verifying that the actual number reflects what the machine recorded.

Before anyone starts going off on me about knowing who voted which way, the paper ballot counters do not necessarily stack the ballots in order after they are counted. I worked with two different counters, one a precinct level machine where the ballots fell into a bin and were stacked semi-randomly, and the other a central voting district machine where someone is feeding all of the ballots from all of the precincts into it. Either one would require some fancy record keeping and a pretty broad conspiracy to defeat secrecy.

In most precincts using electronic machines, there are usually multiple machines per precinct, and even the ones that only had one would still require making notes of who voted in which order in order to be able to determine, from deeply password protected records, what was done on a particular ballot.

Believe me, we instructors played with these ideas until we convinced ourselves, and we even had the passwords for the demo ballots - no way to change ballots and extremely hard to determine a particular ballot.

Having said all that, there will still be candidates that won't believe they lost, just like Al Gore, and they will do everything they can to slow down and subvert the process. Most of them seem to be hoping, these days, to find enough invalid votes, not a miscount, to change the results.

Knowing both of the candidates and working with them both in the past, we want Linda in there. Bob can be, well lets just say he can be easily swayed.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

scoobii wrote:

GrillKing wrote:I agree, protest voting is not always the best course. We have to be pragmatic and sometimes vote for the lessor of two evils who has a chance rather than the carbon copy of ourselves who has no chance....

Can you imagine if thirty of the Democrats didn't cast protest votes for the Libertarian.

I'll bet a dollar to a donut that the Libertarian candidate drew a lot more votes from the Republican candidate. Democrats aren't going to support the Libertarian Party Platform.

Chas.

Libertarians draw a lot from the rebelious college crowd. Usually what we think of as Democrats. Ron Paul's supportors seem to fit this catagory, as well as my hardest workers on my campain. Gay marriage supporters and pot smokers like our platform as much as the conservative limmited tax bunch does.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

scoobii wrote:

GrillKing wrote:I agree, protest voting is not always the best course. We have to be pragmatic and sometimes vote for the lessor of two evils who has a chance rather than the carbon copy of ourselves who has no chance....

Can you imagine if thirty of the Democrats didn't cast protest votes for the Libertarian.

I'll bet a dollar to a donut that the Libertarian candidate drew a lot more votes from the Republican candidate. Democrats aren't going to support the Libertarian Party Platform.

Chas.

I agree whole heartily, protesting voting just does not make any since to me.
We have to, as someone has already said, take the lessor of the two evils that at least have a chance to win.

-geo

bryang wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

scoobii wrote: Can you imagine if thirty of the Democrats didn't cast protest votes for the Libertarian.

I'll bet a dollar to a donut that the Libertarian candidate drew a lot more votes from the Republican candidate. Democrats aren't going to support the Libertarian Party Platform.

Chas.

I agree whole heartily, protesting voting just does not make any since to me.
We have to, as someone has already said, take the lessor of the two evils that at least have a chance to win.

-geo

Voting for the statas quo.. gives us .... well it just gives us the status quo. If we are to rely on just the Republican or Democrats we will continue along with the like of McCain an Obama. If folks are happy with this those choices they should continue to vote within the 2 party system and enjoy the results that are dished out.

Liberty wrote: ... If we are to rely on just the Republican or Democrats we will continue along with the like of McCain an Obama. If folks are happy with this those choices they should continue to vote within the 2 party system and enjoy the results that are dished out.

As H. L. Mencken put it:

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."

Instant-runoff voting.

Frost wrote:Instant-runoff voting.

Condorcet is faster and easier - voters only have to cast one ballot.

KBCraig wrote:Condorcet is faster and easier - voters only have to cast one ballot.

Instant runoff only uses one ballot... I agree that condorcet is a better method, but the advantage of instant runoff is that the average person can understand it. I don't think the general public will ever be OK with an election decided by a spreadsheet they don't understand. Can you imagine a Florida 2000 like situation with a majority rule cycle?

Even an approval ballot would be better then what we have now.