Talk:2004 United States presidential election recounts and legal challenges

message: There is no need for "controversy" in the title because the fact that people are challenging the vote with an effort to recount and contest the results means there is a controversy.  This article basically is about the historical fact there was an effort to recount the election, in that sense this article is a sub article of the main non controversy election article, not just the controversy article. Also, commas in titles are a bad idea in my opinion. zen master 01:11, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I changed Kevin's title ..."controversy, recounts and contests" to "recounts and legal challenges".  This article can/will be a sub article of the main (non controversial) election article also, so there is no need to put "controversy" in the title.  zen master 01:33, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: just recount in the title is better

message: This article, and whole 2004-election-irregularities suite of articles in general, needs less of a data dump of facts and external links and more of a coherent narrative explaining things in a manner appropriate for an encyclopedia.  Dates are fine where they are important, and quotes are fine where they help illustrate a point more clearly than a paraphrase, but giant copy/pastes from lawsuits, lengthy bullet-pointed lists, and so on, don't add anything of value and make the article unreadable.  I've tried cleaning up some of the sections but a lot of work is still needed. --Delirium 18:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this information could be summed up a lot better then it is now.  At a minimum, the sections that were written during the recounts can be updated with the final results.  Ill get on it, but i work quite slowly :-) Bonewah (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs less data dump 

message: :Sept 1. 2005
:CLEVELAND -- Two Cuyahoga County Board of Elections workers were indicted Tuesday on charges of misconduct, including unlawfully obtaining possession of ballots during the 2004 presidential election recount.
:Rosie Grier and Kathleen Dreamer were indicted on six counts each, according to the Cuyahoga County prosecutor's office. The charges carry a maximum prison sentence of 18 months.
:Erie County Prosecutor Kevin Baxter, who was appointed as a special prosecutor in the case, filed the charges.
:"I think the grand jury did what was supported by the evidence: That there was some problems in the way the 2004 presidential recount was conducted," Baxter told the Sandusky Register.
:{...} Bennett said they have received no indication that the county's recount isn't accurate. He said the charges are procedural and don't affect the vote totals.
:Grier and Dreamer were indicted on charges of failure to perform duties imposed upon them by law; misconduct of board of election employees; knowingly disobeying elections law; unlawfully obtaining possession of ballots/ballot boxes or pollbooks; and unlawfully opening or permitting the opening of a sealed package containing ballots. 
Another source:
:Kerger charged that elections officials failed to randomly select precincts that were supposed to be counted by hand and compared against ballots tabulated by a machine; conduct test-runs before witnesses; and investigate discrepancies between vote totals.
:Baxter would not offer details of his investigation but said he examined allegations that officials took "measures in order to all but assure that there would not be a countywide hand count."
:Cuyahoga County's four elections board members issued a statement defending their employees and the voting process.
:"These allegations are based on interpretation of procedures, not on any suggestion of fraud," they said. here
-- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 2 Cuyahoga County BOE workers indicted in Presidential recount

message: I disagree with the proposal to merge this article with the 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities because clearly stated at the top of the article is the fact that this deals with just the votes being recounted. Thoughts anyone? -- DSGruss 19:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess its pointless now, but i also disagree with merging this article.  We are having to merge a bunch of articles with the vote controversies article so another article covering recounts and lawsuits is useful.  This article will need extensive cleanup, however, in my opinion. Bonewah (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After cleanup and further review, i think we should delete this article, as it is all now covered in 2004 United States election voting controversies. Bonewah (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Proposal