Wow. Check this out.
Apparently, Minnesota's 2008 election is still going on. I really don't know why they just don't have a runoff election like every other state in the union has whenever the final results are too close to call. I think it was the late George Carlin who once said that a judge is nothing but a lawyer in a robe, and that should scare anybody. All the more reason to take this out of the courts' hands and back into the hands of the people that the eventual winner will be representing. In that light, since the representative is going to be making decisions that's going to affect the lives of his constituents, shouldn't they have a say in who represents them? Maybe it's just me.
Now With New Videos Embedded!
-
The latest edition now includes photos and videos!
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B085BTCCCD
3 years ago
Posts
3 comments:
Well, a runoff in these economic times is cost-prohibitive and there's no need for one since Franken got the most votes.
A runoff isn't done just because the count is close. Otherwise, we'd have redone the 2000 presidential election.
Hey, dude - if money is an issue, then ask for a bail-out! That's in vogue nowadays, isn't it?
I don't know of what exact circumstances would dictate a run-off (I'm sure there's local and state variances anyway), but I think one should be done here; if for no other reason than to spare us any more of this debacle.
Really, the best way to end the debacle is for Coleman to bow out. He won't do it gracefully, I know. But he lost - didn't get the most votes. The courts, at this point, have ruled.
As much as I loath trying to guess court decisions, I doubt that he's not going to get much traction with an appeal of the appellate court ruling. That was a pretty airtight decision they issued the other day.
Like I say, they generally don't hold runoffs just because the vote count is close.
And how about using some of that stimulus for infrastructure needs, like bridges, up there? Uh, clearly they need it.
Post a Comment