posted
I thought this just had to be a joke, so I watched Thursday's episode of Jon Stewart a second time, just to be sure I wasn't imagining it - - - I wasn't!
quote:On the first ballot for Majority leader to replace Tom delay, the results were not accepted. Why, you ask? Because there were more votes than there were voters present! A second ballot was taken because of the voting irregularities! (loosely quoted)
- - - CNN news
quote:It's just that you wish you had to make these things up!
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk: I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt this time and hope that there is a rational explaination for this.
If not, then
*facepalms
--j_k
I tried to find something on the CNN site about the news clip Jon showed. The only thing I could find was that (I think) one congressman's vote was counted twice, one vote for each of the two leading candidates. That situation - plus no clear majority - caused a runoff, and Blunt lost.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Could it have been this? It's from Jan. 30, 2006.
quote:WASHINGTON - In the race to replace scandal-scarred Rep. Tom DeLay as House majority leader, one contender claims 120 votes, another boasts 90 and the third says he has about 50.
They can't all be right, since the totals claimed by Republican Reps. Roy Blunt, John Boehner and John Shadegg far exceed the 232 lawmakers eligible to vote when the rank and file selects a new leader for an era of political peril.
quote: One plus one equals three in GOP leadership race Vote tallies exceed number of voting lawmakers
Monday, January 30, 2006; Posted: 9:37 a.m. EST (14:37 GMT)WASHINGTON (AP)
Same text in both links because it's an AP written article.
Anyway, it's obvious that lawmakers' claims of how many votes they had was mistaken and/or exaggerated. It does not appear there was voter fraud going on.
posted
FWIW, I read somewhere that the confusion stemmed from the Puerto Rican Rep/observer getting to vote, but since he's only an observer, his vote doesn't actually count. They included his vote on the first count and it took a while (hour and a half ?) for someone to figure out the problem.
Sorry for lack of source, can't remember where I read it. I prefer this explanation to the 'they're corrupt/too stupid to count' ones.
Posts: 349 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
