Talk:Moss v. Bush

Can the election be overturned?

I think the US Constitution provides that it won't be. Kevin Baas argues that Ohio law allows Ohio to change the electoral votes after they have been cast. Since Kevin's assertion does not in itself make anything contrary to it patently false, but only if he can support it, I ask him to provide a link to the Ohio statute that makes the provision he is referring to. jguk 22:04, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jguk, Please stop putting information in an article that you do not know to be true and that others tell you is false.

That is disturbing behavior.

(Moss v. Bush)

Read the article and the court filings. Learn about something before you attempt to teach it. Kevin Baas | talk 22:04, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

(copied from User_talk:Jguk): {

You might care to note that the reference to what the Kerry campaign said that I added was direct from one of the references you added yourself into the article. Kind regards, jguk 22:08, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are confused. That reference does not refer to Moss vs. Bush. Kerry is not involved in that lawsuit, and is unlikely to be as familiar with the relevant laws and procedures as the lawyers persuing the case. Kevin Baas | talk 22:12, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC) }

Why don't you frickin do your own research? Especially before messing with someone else's work? That arrogance + ignorance, and it's a bad combination! Kevin Baas | talk 22:06, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

The legal arguments are made in the court filings, which are cited in the article. Duh. Kevin Baas | talk 22:07, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

Kevin, paragraph 3 of the first case makes it clear that the plaintiffs are contesting the certification of the electoral college votes. Paragraph 1 of the prayer for relief in that case reiterates that.

The same is true (with the same paragraph references) for the second case. Note, however, that in the second case, paragraph 1 of the Prayer for Relief asks for a declaration that the electoral votes should go to Kerry-Edwards, but without providing legal reference for it. This compares with the rest of that paragraph, where legal reference is provided for the claims to have the certification overturned or set aside. This is no coincidence - the court does not have the power to decide what the electoral votes are, only to overturn the certification. Any declaration as to electoral votes would have no legal effect.

Now the sources you quote that offer an opinion make it clear that the case is almost certain, if not certain, to fail. But let's briefly examine what would happen if it succeeded. The court would set aside the certification of the electoral votes. It may, or may not, make a declaration as to where the electoral votes should have gone, but as noted above, such a declaration would have no legal effect. Therefore, when Congress meets on 6 January to count the votes, Ohio would not be able to present any properly certified votes. This would leave both Bush and Kerry short of the 271 votes (ie a majority of the Electors - which is still set at 540 even if they do not all cast valid votes). This would throw the Presidency open to the House of Representatives, and the Vice-Presidency open to the Senate (see U.S. Electoral College - or read the U.S. Constitution and the Electoral laws in the United States Code for a fuller picture). There is little doubt that in this very unlikely scenario, with both the House and Senate in Republican hands, Bush winning a plurality of the popular vote and Kerry having conceded the election, that Bush would win in the House, and Cheney in the Senate.

The view that this case will not change the election is therefore entirely in line with the facts.

The rest of what I added was a précis of a small bit of the first reference quoted in the article. I trust you are not questioning the accuracy of that bit? I thought it was relevant in the same way as ABC did. You may disagree with me on that, as is your right, but that is why I added it. You will note that the front page of johnkerry.com still contains Kerry's concession speech. Kind regards, jguk 22:55, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have read a document citing that the ohio supreme court has the power to overturn an election result if fraud is demonstrated. I would take me time to re-find this. That supports the changing of the electoral votes.

Aside from law, changing the electoral votes would be the proper, rational, and moral thing to do if it is undeed demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that in a legitimate election, the other candidate would win.

Regarding, "The view that this case will not change the election is therefore entirely in line with the facts." - I do not dispute this, however, a "view" is not a "fact", it is a "point of view", and as such, does not belong in the article.

I withold judgement on the outcome of the court case, because I do not know, and can admit to not knowing, what evidence the prosecutors have. I am quite curious, because their claim is quite bold. I see from the second filing that they have quite a few witnesses, but I understand that revealing too much information prematuraly may jeopardize their case. Anyways, given that I effectively know nothing about their case, I'd give it about a 50%-50% chance of what the prosecutors would consider "success". Giving it any other distribution would imply that I know something about it. That is how you and me differ on this point: I withold judgement. Kevin Baas | talk 23:11, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

I'll offer you a wager then. If the case is ultimately successful so that Ohio changes its electoral college votes so that Kerry wins them I'll give you $100. If, however, the case fails, so that Bush takes them, you give me $50. Not bad if you think it's 50:50. Are you on? :) Kind regards, jguk 23:18, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No. I would not bet on 50:50 odds. If I had to wager, I would wager more that the case would fail, largely based on the obstruction so far and the fact that the judge was originally indicted in the first filling, and instead of recusing himself dismissed the case against himself. I.e., i don't think the judge will make an impartial ruling, so that affects the probability regardless of the merits of the case. Bla bla bla, lots of sociological assessments and calculations...

But that is idiosyncratic of me, and does not belong in the article. The article has to be based on stricter logic, making fewer assumptions, etc., in order to apply to a more general audience. With these criteria in respect to the article, we can only accept an a priori probability of 50-50, regardless of what we think or would wager. Kevin Baas | talk 23:39, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

What you are proposing is a nonsense. That wherever a court case of any description is raised, we should report it on the assumption that it has a 50:50 chance of success. That would leave Wikipedia hostage to the conspiracy theorists and those wishing to promote minority off-the-wall views. Here we can report what various commentators say about its chances of success. There is nothing wrong in doing this. Nor need this be one-sided if you can find serious commentators who argue that it has a strong chance of success. Soon, of course, we will be able to report the result, but for now, we can report what serious commentators say. jguk 00:04, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is not nonsense. What's nonsense is arguments (this is not at you) like "If we let them count the ballots that were found in King County, WA, then they'll just keep adding ballots and we'll never stop counting." - That argument assumes that there are an infinite number of ballots, which is, to say the least, inconcievable. The counting of ballots will stop when all of the ballots are counted, as they d*mn well should be. But I digress.

Now you're talk of "conspiracy theorists", I hope you can understand means nothing to me. What is a conspiracy? It is when multiple people cooperated to accomplish some given task that they all were predisposed to. Today, I just conspired with my associates to finish a website we've been working on for a client. Does that seem improbable to you? Okay, now would it seem more or less improbable if I said I made the website all by myself? Less, I would hope. Consipiracies usually are rather harmless. Idealogies, on the hand, can be rather dangerous.

But again, I digress. Both sides can be argued effectively. Obstruction is obstruction. It is not conspiracy. It is a phenomena. It alters the end result just as a "conspiracy theory" would, in fact, I would expect an event to have more influence on a result than a theory.

Though both sides can be argued, the "conspiracy theorists" argument is considered to be a logical fallacy, namely ad hominem or "personal attack", and as such is not a valid basis for an argument in a debate where you can expect your debatee to be able to think rationally.

Now looking at the history of court cases, court cases actually win a little more than fail, so i was slanting to your benefit.

I have told you before (on your talk page), and I will say it again: you are welcome to put people views on the manner in the article, in an appropriately labeled section. Predictions and views do not belong in the section describing the court case. Kevin Baas | talk 00:22, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

The paragraph that you added, the first sentence is an opinion. The rest of the paragraph is non-sequitur; irrelevant. This article is not about recounts or kerry conceding. It is about a lawsuit. If you want to put kerry's opinion on the lawsuit "Moss v. Bush", make a section and put it in their. As far as I know, he has made no public statements regarding the suit. Kevin Baas | talk 04:33, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

Nice work reorganizing the page and expanding

Thanks, the page looks much better. I trimmed some POV, and I hope you will continue to trim any POV I inadvertently put in. You can see the edit summaries for reasoning. If you still dispute, let us discuss it here. Kevin Baas | talk 21:28, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

The sources supporting the bit on what would happen were the case successful, I left on your talk page. Essentially they are in the US Constitution and in Title 3 of the United States Code. Please see your talk page for links to these.

I'm fine with everything I didn't trim, whether or not it's sourced. I'd prefer things to be sourced anyways, for utility to the reader: so people can verify it and read more about it. Though there has been discussions/disputes on other talk pages about the extent of citing and how it should be done. I like the section on what the possible outcomes could be, both in principle and as written. I would be against attributing probabilities to the outcomes, in principle.

If we allow Arnebeck's comment that he has enough proof to win his case, we should have other comments (and your own references provide some) that the case has little or no chance of success. If it's the general attribution to "mainstream media" that you do not like, we can be more specific in the attribution of such comments. I'm easy on whether both comments stay, or both go, but do not think it should be keep just one of them.

Arnebeck's claim is different, because it is part of the suit; the suit claims to have sufficient evidence, and that effects the legal proceedings. Maybe it could be reworded. I don't mean for it to be rhetorical.

I'm not aware of any reports by MSM that they don't think it would be successfull. I don't think that would be responsible reporting. Perhaps in an editorial they could write that, but not in a news article. As a prediction, it is not reporting what has or is happening, but what may happen, which is not news; is not a desciption of empirical events.

Perhaps one might think by that the fact that they are underreporting it, that they don't give it much credit, but that is a guess as to why they are underreporting it, that we cannot be sure of. We may say that they are underreporting it, or whatever wording can be agreed upon, but we should not guess as to their motivations or opinions.

If you do in fact have reports were specific news sources have editorialized about Moss v. Bush, then that may be appropriate for a POV's section, in balance, ofcourse.

If there are points of views presented, they should be in a section specifically for views, and I agree, they should present both sides.

I don't think there's any doubt what the House or Senate would do if the election were thrown to them to decide. Do you think you could find someone who does have serious doubts about that? We could change "The expectation would be that they would" to ", who would almost certainly". jguk 21:38, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't claim to know anyone who has doubts. I just don't think it's appropriate to make judgements in the article. That is for the reader to do. I don't think any reader would be at pains to come to the same conclusion that we both do. And I don't think it's our responsibility, or even that we have the right to, suggest this to them. Kevin Baas | talk 02:48, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

Law resources

However, as late as 1914, Ohio apparently provided for a commission to hear contests involving presidential electors. See Link v. Karb, 104 N.E. 632, 638 (Ohio 1914) (“For instance, the contest of an election of an *elector* of the President of the United States shall be heard before a commission consisting of the Governor and four judges of the circuit courts, to be appointed by the Governor; the judgment of this commission is final.”). [1]

Outcome Allegation - Because the petition must allege the elements of an election contest, the petition should include allegations that because of the irregularities, enough ballots were affected that the result of the election was incorrect or uncertain. A contest petition fails to state a cause of action for contest of an election if it does not allege that the contestee did not receive the largest number of votes or that there was sufficient error, fraud, or mistake in the tabulation of the ballots to taint the result. See Cooper v. Kosling, 94 N.E.2d 1, 1 (Ohio 1950); cf Thompson v. Redington, 110 N.E.2d 652, 655 (Ohio 1915) (petition sufficient where it avers that the contestor was duly elected to office). Complying with the required outcome allegation could prove problematic for contestors of the 2004 presidential race in Ohio where the Democratic Party is on record as saying the election outcome will not change, although the group planning to file a contest on Wednesday apparently believes that Senator Kerry would have won but for the improprieties. See James Dao & Alberto Salvato, As Questions Keep Coming, Ohio Certifies Its Vote Count, N.Y. Times, Dec. 7, 2004, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/national/07ohio.html?ore=login. - [2]

I can't find Link v. Karb. Kevin Baas | talk 20:29, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

On other sites

[3]

Also at, [4]:

At this point, Kerry would require court and/or congressional intervention to win the election. Ohio law allows its courts to overturn the results of any election, including their election of presidential electors. There is some ambiguity as to whether an Ohio court, if finding that the wrong set of electors were elected, could order their votes changed.

If Kerry can show that the election was not held to the standard of "one voter, one vote," and that he would have won if the election had been held to that standard, then the courts can find that the election result was wrong. The documented disenfranchisement of precincts historically favoring Democrats and actually favoring Kerry is known with certainty within a few thousand votes.

Kerry can also win in Ohio if legal action or the recount uncovers gross fraud. Kerry needs more than 118,000 additional votes, so the recount alone, which will consider 93,000 additional ballots, will probably not help much. There is evidence that inequitable distribution of voting machines, resulting in an unevenly distributed effective occurrences of multi-hour waiting, may also more than make up the vote difference; however, the recount process will not take these issues into account.

If the election is overturned on the Ohio level, then a challenge may have to be raised by one Congressman and one Senator during the meeting where the Electoral Votes are counted. Depending on the strength of the case, Congress may still not vote to invalidate the Bush electors that have already been appointed. However, an order by an Ohio court to the electors requiring them to change their votes may be sufficient. [5]

Kevin Baas | talk 21:46, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

Great article, info to be put in here

[6] Kevin Baas^talk 18:21, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

electoral college

What happens if the elector college changes votes after they cast them and before they're counted? How Kennedy won Hawaii Kevin Baas^talk 22:42, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)

Also: [7] Kevin Baas^talk 01:52, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

cleaned up substantially

I've cleaned up the article substantially, and removed the dispute tags as a result. The main changes were making it more concise and readable, rather than grandiosely over-wordy, and taking out some editorializing that had been thrown in. The main improvement it still needs is sources for all the dates and whatnot; many that had sources before are 404 links, and some had no sources to begin with. --Delirium 09:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

removal of pdf research papers

Hey there. Not sure I agree with the rationale for removal of the pdf links, as far as I could tell, those are the research papers themselves and are indeed of use for people who want to dig further and read the core materials. Thoughts? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of "Potential outcomes" subsection

I'm leaning towards deleting "Potential outcomes" for the following reasons:

1. As written, it's WP:OR.
2. It's unsourced, which violates WP:V.
3. Talking about the "potential outcomes" of a suit that was dismissed is a fairly delicate topic, which I think exacerbates the concerns above. I'd be happier with a properly sourced sentence somewhere stating that if successful, the Contestors would have shifted enough electoral votes to Kerry to shift the election.

Thanks, TheronJ 15:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. Such futurism seems a bit of a stretch for an encyclopedia. A blip along the lines of your last sentence would sum up the relevance of the case nicely. The last paragraph of the section does seem to sum up the procedural and Constitutional reality and relevance of a successful bid to overturn Ohio's electoral votes - so perhaps modification of that core would suffice. Thoughts? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Article way too long

These lawsuits never amounted to anything. If the judge involved described them as "at best, highly improbable and potentially defamatory, inflammatory, and devoid of logic" why should we spend more then a cursory amount of time covering them? Bonewah (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Motion

The Arbitration Committee are reviewing the discretionary sanctions topic areas with a view to remove overlapping authorisations, the proposed changes will affect this topic area. Details of the proposal are at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: Overlap of Sanctions where your comments are invited. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Moss v. Bush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050418113805/http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-ohio-6792.pdf to http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-ohio-6792.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071127064014/http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-ohio-6794.pdf to http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-ohio-6794.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071127064012/http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2005/2005-ohio-71.pdf to http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2005/2005-ohio-71.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051226080759/http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2005/2005-ohio-2419.pdf to http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2005/2005-ohio-2419.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050115095334/http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-ohio-7079.pdf to http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-ohio-7079.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041229140804/http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-ohio-6995.pdf to http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-ohio-6995.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041230172539/http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-ohio-7119.pdf to http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-ohio-7119.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050115095244/http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-ohio-7120.pdf to http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-ohio-7120.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050418113803/http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-ohio-7020.pdf to http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-ohio-7020.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)