Why should we pick and choose what rights are restored and which are not for someone who has completed their sentence? If the sentence included a permanent revocation of voting rights I wouldn’t argue this point but I don’t think that has ever been done.

Should we also revoke their right to own property, hold a job, get married, etc? Isn’t the goal to try and minimize criminal recurrence and isn’t trying to integrate these folks back into society fully a worthy goal that would be harmed by not restoring rights once a sentence is completed?

Second, all of the votes WERE counted. But as Matt stated above, the winner was called when it was clear that counting the remaining votes was more a formality than anything that would change the results of the election. Note that the article (by a Washington Post writer than Greg has assailed in the past for shoddy reporting, I might add) states that Levar Stoney emerged from the counting room as the hall was being cleaned up and made the statements about who won. This was NOT a formal announcement, but a far more informal update to those who happened to have stayed behind (much more akin to the media declaring a victor). In fact, in the days after the convention, there was some confusion over who had been selected as delegates precisely because a formal announcement didn’t happen immediately.

Simple fact is that voting is a privilege, and reserving that privilege for people who manage to NOT severely break the law is a reasonable position.

Can’t disagree about the topic of this thread.

As for the topic of this thread again Greg is making a mountain out of a molehill. There is nothing wrong with calling a winner once the 50%+1 threshold has been reached; especially when all the remaining votes were counted for a final result.

I guess news has been slow recently…..

One big difference–the media doesn’t settle elections and all votes are counted by the boards of election.

Here’s a better Shakespearean paraphrase for you:

“A spin! A Spin! My White House for a spin!”

Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

They were able to declare that the slate had won because enough votes had been counted by that point to make it clear that no other challenger could prevail, much in the way the media will declare a victor with less than 100% of the votes being counted.

Or, it’s the way we now assume John McCain and Barrack Obama will be the nominees of their respective parties. They aren’t *officially* the nominees until their party conventions are held, but it’s pretty safe to say they will prevail there.

Once again, your relevancy to a topic misses the mark. This is much ado about nothing. I think another quote from the Bard is appropriate:

“It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” (MacBeth, Act 5, Scene 5)