Billy Tauro, the Trump-supporting publisher of The Somerville News Weekly, demanded and is receiving a recount of the November 2 mayoral election, to be held Thursday, starting at 9:30 a.m. at Somerville City Hall.
State law appears to allow Tauro to demand this recount despite the fact he was not on the November ballot after losing the Sept. 14 preliminary with less than 15% of the vote. Tauro then ran a write-in campaign, losing again on November 2, with write-ins receiving 6.5% of the vote.
Pathetic but par for course.
We better get our $#[email protected] wrapped up here and QUICK.
Because while these tactics get laughed at up here, elsewhere these tricks are already being used and tested as a way to stop the next elections.
They learned 1/6-style assaults aren't gonna win elections so the new plan is to send election day into a multi-state chaos so they eventually are forced to turn to each states elected officials to decide who really won. And then Democracy is really finished.
We have no tangible Mason Dixon to point to in this era but the divide is still there. And it's arguably worse than 1861.
Get out or get ready.
Where are elected officials deciding elections? That's scary if true.
I would think it would be civil servants and judges.
Periodically doing audits of paper ballots is one way of proving the elections are valid and ensuring the machines are working correctly.
The Somerville (Twerksbury) guy here is a horrible human by all accounts and he clearly lost. But legitimate election audits should be common just to prove the system is working.
MA state law already requires randomized hand-audits of paper ballots, though only for the Presidential election years --- see
(also includes report from the 2020 audit).
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
I got stuck in traffic behind Tauro and his sticker/ placard-festooned Hummer on Election Day- was driving like he was riding in a parade and waving to people
Does it take to count to 36
You win the comments section today.
first he'd have to convince a friend to take off his shoes.
With a margin like that, I expect he'll have to pay for that recount...right?
Frankly, we should be doing more of them. What I'd like to see, though, is *random* recounts so that we're more likely to catch both fraud and system errors that aren't obvious.
(not that I think this particular recount is going to turn up anything interesting)
The "business" of running elections taken pretty seriously.
That's why it is so offensive and troubling that not only are baseless accusations of fraud being levied by key elements of the GOP, but that they are trying to leverage that to change the system. Their goal is to allow them to toss the results of an election if it goes against "their team" over similar baseless accusations and have a second election in a government chamber with just the gerrymandered/partisan body that will give them the results they want.
We always have a few narcissists who write their own names, a few people voted for Cassesso, the third place finisher in the primary, and a few will always write "Mickey Mouse" or "Bill Belechek" or what have you, and for the last several years a few people have written "Donald Trump" for all elected positions.
Billiam is going from a 6.5% to a 5.9%, and spending my tax dollars to lose even more.
Just because someone files a petition asking for a recount doesn't automatically mean that the recount must be granted. Just to take an absurd example, if someone ran a write-in campaign as a joke and got a total of 6 votes, no rational person would support doing a recount.
An unhappy candidate could, of course, challenge this in court, but it's doubtful that any court would overrule the rejection unless the margins were reasonably close, e.g. less than 2%.
Recounts can be expensive. They can also be informative and help to validate the election system, but in this case I don't understand why the recount would have been granted.
assuming that the letter Tauro posted here is legitimate and not fake. (See the two jpgs at the end of the blog entry.)
My guess is that the city wants to avoid a (baseless, but still potentially expensive) lawsuit from this loser. What we need is a change to state law so that you can't demand a recount (or you have to pay for it) if your margin of defeat is greater than N%.
sad little racist trust-fund babies with a trail of failed businesses, a pathetic array of vanity books and newspapers designed to blow smoke up their own asses, and multiple criminal convictions for fraud?
Or just this feckless loo-loo-loser?
Move to Florida, asshole. There's an actual market for your dribbly dogshit down there. The only thing you'll find up here is a political pressure washer pushing you into the storm drain again and again, no matter how many recounts you request.
That's a good name for a bull(expletive) artist.
Went to the magat's website using the link provided. I stopped reading after this:
His Cabinet and Advisors:He will contract the best managers and the world’s finest minds that he can trust and he will make certain that they all will be held accountable.
The former one's cabinet had to have been the biggest bunch of inept, crooked fools I've ever seen in a cabinet. Just the fact that his cabinet had a veritable revolving door tells you all you had to know.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Copyright 2022 by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy