Kerry Blames 'Suppressed' Voters In His Defeat To Bush [Archive]

TragicMonkey

18th January 2005, 11:01 AM

Kerry, Kerry....oh yeah, that guy. From the Land of Three Months Ago.

I voted for him, but he lost, so now it's "Who cares?" He can blame the Cylons, the ayatollah, or fluoridated water. Toss him on the compost heap and start looking for a better horse for 2008, one who'll win and thus spare him- or herself the need to look for answers to what is, fundamentally, a pointless question.

Unless you're the one selecting a horse, in which case you'd want all the research possible. But that's the Democrats' problem, not the public's.

corplinx

18th January 2005, 11:43 AM

In the months before the election he started making untrue accusations of disenfranchisement and suppression about the last election.

I am not sure if he knows the truth and lies or is simply misinformed by staffers who might lean towards the machiavelli moveon mentality.

American

18th January 2005, 01:21 PM

"In Democratic districts, it took people four, five, eleven hours to vote, while Republicans [went] through in 10 minutes -- same voting machines, same process, our America."

This much I would believe, and it's all you need to know about the two parties.

Jocko

18th January 2005, 01:38 PM

Zep

18th January 2005, 01:46 PM

Why is this guy looking backwards? Doesn't matter if the Dem voters were kept away at gunpoint, it seems the US political system will just shrug and accept any old result that comes on the day regardless of legality or possible errors.

So if you want to win next time, Kerry, better develop some better spoiling and vote-rigging tactics than the Reps used this time, OK? Legality and fair-play have bugger-all to do with it, sport.

TragicMonkey

18th January 2005, 01:47 PM

Or perhaps voting is swifter in less densely populated areas, owing to having fewer people in line?

Jocko

18th January 2005, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Or perhaps voting is swifter in less densely populated areas, owing to having fewer people in line?

Let's just say there's a whole slew of rational explanations to go through before we arrive at conspiracy and disenfranchisement. Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence (source unknown).

TragicMonkey

18th January 2005, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Jocko
Let's just say there's a whole slew of rational explanations to go through before we arrive at conspiracy and disenfranchisement. Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence (source unknown).

Oh, I agree. I think both sides probably cheated, but only a little, definitely not enough to make a difference either way. Anything widespread and really effective would have been far too difficult for either group to achieve. A few cemetrries on the rolls in one county, a few accidentally lost ballots in another....it all balances out to a waste of effort on both sides.

NoZed Avenger

18th January 2005, 02:37 PM

If he truly thought this, I have to wonder why he did not even bother to show up for the confirmation vote in the Senate.

You'd think it would be kind of a big deal.

But what do I know, I guess if "people keeping voters away at gunpoint" isn't a big deal, then he's right in thinking neither is this half-#ssed allegation.

Random

18th January 2005, 05:19 PM

Kerry did not blame the loss of thousands of votes due to voter supression on his loss. That is something the right wing made up to distract people from what he is saying.

Kerry is saying that thousands of people were prevented from voting in primarily Democratic districts by long lines, while voters in Republican districts sailed through. Democrats blame this on a deliberately flawed distribution of voting machines, voter challengers, etc. It does not appear that the disenfrachisment was enough to give bush the win in and of itself, but that does not make it right.

By simply adding the "factesque" detail about Kerry blaming his loss on these disenfrachised voters, the story is transformed from "Americans Deliberately Prevented From Voting" to "Kerry is a Crybaby".

Zep

18th January 2005, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
But what do I know, I guess if "people keeping voters away at gunpoint" isn't a big deal, then he's right in thinking neither is this half-#ssed allegation. Poetic license... I used poetic license.

NoZed Avenger

18th January 2005, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by Random
By simply adding the "factesque" detail about Kerry blaming his loss on these disenfrachised voters, the story is transformed from "Americans Deliberately Prevented From Voting" to "Kerry is a Crybaby".

Maybe they were using poetic license, too.

Beerina

18th January 2005, 07:05 PM

corplinx

19th January 2005, 07:15 AM

Not to mention, this long line business has been repudiated by some poll workers in some of the places where it was alleged.

You have to remember, the long line accusation is the easiest chickencrap accusation to make since there is no empirical data to disprove you.

In other words, its flies in the face of skepticism. These people make the remark and leave it to you to prove them wrong.

Random

19th January 2005, 07:54 AM

It should be easy enough to check the ratio of voting machines to the number of voters in each precinct and compare that with whether those precincts leaned Republican or Democrat. If everyone in a particular state waited an average of an hour to vote, that is not a problem really. If everyone in a Democratic leaning city had to wait two hours on average, while people in the Republican leaning suburbs only had to wait thirty minutes, that is a serious problem. (Feel free to switch around the words Republican and Democratic if you do not find yourself being outraged)

Capitalist

19th January 2005, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by American
"In Democratic districts, it took people four, five, eleven hours to vote, while Republicans [went] through in 10 minutes -- same voting machines, same process, our America."

This much I would believe, and it's all you need to know about the two parties.

This reminds me of the 2000 elections in Palm Beach County, with the infamous butterfly ballot. There was never-ending whinning about how the ballot had caused elderly Jewish people to vote for anti-Semite Pat Buchanan, and how it was part of a conspiracy.... Except the ballots were designed by a democrat, and they were tested by democrat, in a county where almost every elected official is a democrat.

This is the same deal here. If Kerry's unproved allegations are true--than in democrat-dominated prescints it was harder to vote--my answer remains: whose fault is that?

kalen

19th January 2005, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Or perhaps voting is swifter in less densely populated areas, owing to having fewer people in line?

Or perhaps voting is less swift in areas with a dense population. (wink)

Seriously, if Kerry wanted to make an issue out of the inconsistencies, then he should've said something months ago. Too few people care that there were some serious and confirmed irregularities most notably in Ohio. Who knows what else may have biased the result one way or another? So, to me neither Bush or Kerry is a great defender of democracy.

kalen

19th January 2005, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Oh, I agree. I think both sides probably cheated, but only a little, definitely not enough to make a difference either way. Anything widespread and really effective would have been far too difficult for either group to achieve. A few cemetrries on the rolls in one county, a few accidentally lost ballots in another....it all balances out to a waste of effort on both sides.

When the head elections official and the CEO of the company that makes the electronic voting machines both say that they are going to see that the Repulicans win - you gotta start wondering. How easy would it be to rig more than a few computers to make the cheating "widespread and really effective?" Well, it's pretty damn easy. Especially when no one can see the source code for the program and there is no paper trail to check afterwards. Can one really say that these voting machines were properly evaluated by elections officials? My guess is no.

Besides, it was seen that the election was going to be a really close race and only a couple of swing states needed to be subverted - not the entire country.

I'm not saying these things actually happened. I am saying that I a little perturbed that there hasn't been more of a question raised about the results to preserve the notion that Americans really do live in a democratic nation. Libertarian and the Greens were actually trying to get to the bottom of the inconsistencies from the beginning. Kerry piping up now is just pathetic.

priapus

19th January 2005, 10:40 AM

I did notice something here where I live. I live a couple miles from Tom Delay's district. I was in a republican district but was gerrymandered into a largely democrat district. Going to the wrong voting place, the lines were short, but when I got to the right voting place, the lines were very, very long. Does this mean anything? Probably not, but it did make me wonder.

RussDill

19th January 2005, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by Random

Kerry is saying that thousands of people were prevented from voting in primarily Democratic districts by long lines, while voters in Republican districts sailed through. Democrats blame this on a deliberately flawed distribution of voting machines, voter challengers, etc. It does not appear that the disenfrachisment was enough to give bush the win in and of itself, but that does not make it right.

I waited for 5 hours to vote, in a primarily republican district. Thus, I don't feel sorry for anyone who didn't vote because they thought they had to wait to long. ESPECIALLY because they could have just voted absentee.

BTW, just my two cents, but I think the optical scanner method should be adopted nation wide. Only one working machine is needed per polling place (two would be nice for a backup) and the voter is instantly informed of a problem (ie, double votes). Not only that, but recount is easy, and the breakage of a machine does not mean that voting needs to halt, they can just be scanned later.

RussDill

19th January 2005, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by kalen

Seriously, if Kerry wanted to make an issue out of the inconsistencies, then he should've said something months ago. Too few people care that there were some serious and confirmed irregularities most notably in Ohio. Who knows what else may have biased the result one way or another? So, to me neither Bush or Kerry is a great defender of democracy.

He did (even before the election), its just news that he is *still* saying it.

Random

19th January 2005, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by priapus
I did notice something here where I live. I live a couple miles from Tom Delay's district. I was in a republican district but was gerrymandered into a largely democrat district. Going to the wrong voting place, the lines were short, but when I got to the right voting place, the lines were very, very long. Does this mean anything? Probably not, but it did make me wonder.

Thatâ€™s nothing. When I went to vote, I went to a local high school. Our district is divided up into various precincts, but the high school is the location that two precincts report to in order to vote. There were two tables, one for each precinct. One table had a line thirty people deep, while the other had two poll workers basically twiddling their thumbs waiting for the occasional voter to come in. Weird.

Random

19th January 2005, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by RussDill
I waited for 5 hours to vote, in a primarily republican district. Thus, I don't feel sorry for anyone who didn't vote because they thought they had to wait to long. ESPECIALLY because they could have just voted absentee.

Mixed opinions on this. I have no problem with waiting in line for five hours to vote, but I shouldnâ€™t have to.
Also, just because someone is willing to wait hours to vote, doesnâ€™t mean they are able. A lot of people work, and its one thing to go out and vote on your lunch break, but another thing entirely to take the day off to cast your ballot. The easy way to solve this is to make election day a national holiday, which is opposed by various groups because it would mean more people could vote.

BTW, just my two cents, but I think the optical scanner method should be adopted nation wide. Only one working machine is needed per polling place (two would be nice for a backup) and the voter is instantly informed of a problem (ie, double votes). Not only that, but recount is easy, and the breakage of a machine does not mean that voting needs to halt, they can just be scanned later.

Ditto. It is the best readily available compromise between the ability to verify and the need to count massive numbers of votes.

RussDill

19th January 2005, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by Random
Mixed opinions on this. I have no problem with waiting in line for five hours to vote, but I shouldnâ€™t have to.
Also, just because someone is willing to wait hours to vote, doesnâ€™t mean they are able. A lot of people work, and its one thing to go out and vote on your lunch break, but another thing entirely to take the day off to cast your ballot. The easy way to solve this is to make election day a national holiday, which is opposed by various groups because it would mean more people could vote.

Vote absentee, I was too lazy to mail the thing in, which I regretted.

Random

19th January 2005, 11:43 AM

Tempting, but that would mean that my vote would not only have to go through my local voting syndicate, but also the US Postal service. Even if I use FedEx or some such, itâ€™s just one more thing that can go wrong. Besides, there is a certain satisfaction in going to the polls and voting. Itâ€™s like a comforting ritual.

American

19th January 2005, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by Capitalist

This is the same deal here. If Kerry's unproved allegations are true--than in democrat-dominated prescints it was harder to vote--my answer remains: whose fault is that?

'Zactly. It could have been either voting or a lunch line for tacos, and the success of the process would be equally predictable based on the participants.

Jocko

19th January 2005, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by American
'Zactly. It could have been either voting or a lunch line for tacos, and the success of the process would be equally predictable based on the participants.

Slightly off topic, but at least we can put PART of this stupid election conspiracy crap to rest. Apparently exit polls aren't actually all that reliable after all. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144859,00.html) And this isn't Karl Rove saying so.... it's the media. It seems some errors gave the mistaken impression that Kerry was doing better than he was. If you don't like Fox, then look at the linked PDF from the horse's mouth instead.

Of course, for true believers like Ion, this will only prove how high the conspiracy really goes. Not only was Bush personally disenfranchising voters left and right (as if he could even pronounce it!) but now even THE MEDIA ITSELF IS PART OF THE ANTI-MEDIA CONSPIRACY to cover it all up.

Truly diabolical, that Bush.

corplinx

19th January 2005, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Jocko
Slightly off topic, but at least we can put PART of this stupid election conspiracy crap to rest. Apparently exit polls aren't actually all that reliable after all. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144859,00.html) And this isn't Karl Rove saying so.... it's the media. It seems some errors gave the mistaken impression that Kerry was doing better than he was. If you don't like Fox, then look at the linked PDF from the horse's mouth instead.

Of course, for true believers like Ion, this will only prove how high the conspiracy really goes. Not only was Bush personally disenfranchising voters left and right (as if he could even pronounce it!) but now even THE MEDIA ITSELF IS PART OF THE ANTI-MEDIA CONSPIRACY to cover it all up.

Truly diabolical, that Bush.

JUST LIKE A CONSERVATIVE TO LINK FAUX NEWS! THEY HAVNET GOTTEN A STORY RIGHT SINCE THEY BROKE THE BUSH DUI STORY THE FRIDAY BEFORE THE 2000 ELECTION! THEY ARE PART OF THE BUSH RELECTION CAMPAIGNXOR!

Jocko

19th January 2005, 01:27 PM

Capitalist

19th January 2005, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by corplinx
JUST LIKE A CONSERVATIVE TO LINK FAUX NEWS! THEY HAVNET GOTTEN A STORY RIGHT SINCE THEY BROKE THE BUSH DUI STORY THE FRIDAY BEFORE THE 2000 ELECTION! THEY ARE PART OF THE BUSH RELECTION CAMPAIGNXOR!

Just like, well, let's not go there.... Just like you to impugne the source instead of addressing the issue. As such, I have nothing else to say.

Mrick

19th January 2005, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by Capitalist
Just like, well, let's not go there.... Just like you to impugne the source instead of addressing the issue. As such, I have nothing else to say.

Well the issue is that we are moving to less verifiability not more. That it is the Republicans who don't want a paper trail. And the corporate companies have Republican ties - Big Time. It is democrats who do want a paper trail so electronic ballots can be recounted.

Republicans don't like counting. In the 2000, the Supreme Court stopped the counting to make sure that Bush won. And we now know that Scalia was in a tizzy to make sure this happened even before argument. This is the same Scalia who likes to duck hunt with Chaney during a case involving Chaney.

Was the election rigged? I doubt it. Was it attempted? I don't doubt that. In a nation closely divided, we are at a point where he who cheats the best wins.

For those that think Bush really lost, by all means ignore the government and its laws. I suspect he won but I wouldn't bet on it.

This topic is examined to night on ABC Nightline for those interested.

imho,
Mrick

Zep

20th January 2005, 12:08 AM

Hmmm... Here's a thought.

What does it actually matter if anyone of any political persuasion waited 10 minutes, 50 minutes, 5 hours or even a week to vote? As long as they finally voted at some point in time? Or am I wrong in expecting that the final tally is the clincher, not the half-time score?

If so, wtf, Kerry?

Kevin_Lowe

20th January 2005, 04:45 AM

Originally posted by Zep
Hmmm... Here's a thought.

What does it actually matter if anyone of any political persuasion waited 10 minutes, 50 minutes, 5 hours or even a week to vote? As long as they finally voted at some point in time? Or am I wrong in expecting that the final tally is the clincher, not the half-time score?

If so, wtf, Kerry?

I'm not aware of anyone who thinks that voter suppression by machine shortage swung the election by itself - people have guesstimated figures about what the effect might have been, and they're smaller than the official margin of victory in Ohio.

However there is some statistical evidence that fewer people ended up voting in the shorted areas than you would expect, so it's perfectly plausible that tens of thousands of people went home rather than wait for a long time. People do that.

Capitalist

20th January 2005, 05:01 AM

Originally posted by Mrick
Well the issue is that we are moving to less verifiability not more. That it is the Republicans who don't want a paper trail. And the corporate companies have Republican ties - Big Time. It is democrats who do want a paper trail so electronic ballots can be recounted.

Republicans don't like counting. In the 2000, the Supreme Court stopped the counting to make sure that Bush won. And we now know that Scalia was in a tizzy to make sure this happened even before argument. This is the same Scalia who likes to duck hunt with Chaney during a case involving Chaney.

Was the election rigged? I doubt it. Was it attempted? I don't doubt that. In a nation closely divided, we are at a point where he who cheats the best wins.

For those that think Bush really lost, by all means ignore the government and its laws. I suspect he won but I wouldn't bet on it.

This topic is examined to night on ABC Nightline for those interested.

imho,
Mrick

Several issues;

1. In the case of a paper trail, there is a trade-off, not an absolute answer. You can commit fraud by tampering with the machines, like Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela, but with a paper trail, you can cheat by tampering with the ballots, like the Democrats did in Washington State this year.

2. Republicans indeed don't like counting.... fake ballots, Washington State 2004, doubtful ballots from three heavily Democratic Counties in 2000 (Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach, the same ballots from Republicans Counties were not being counted.) I mean, shame on them, stopping counts to stop fraud.

3. If you ignore the laws of the Land, you'll go to jail.

4. Nightline? Can't you come with something, you know, less histerically anti-Bush?

Zep

20th January 2005, 05:09 AM

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
I'm not aware of anyone who thinks that voter suppression by machine shortage swung the election by itself - people have guesstimated figures about what the effect might have been, and they're smaller than the official margin of victory in Ohio.

However there is some statistical evidence that fewer people ended up voting in the shorted areas than you would expect, so it's perfectly plausible that tens of thousands of people went home rather than wait for a long time. People do that. Yeah, I forgot it's NON-compulsory voting in the USA. Silly me.

Jocko

20th January 2005, 06:42 AM

Originally posted by Mrick
Well the issue is that we are moving to less verifiability not more. That it is the Republicans who don't want a paper trail. And the corporate companies have Republican ties - Big Time. It is democrats who do want a paper trail so electronic ballots can be recounted.

Really? Show me an example of the noble democrats demanding endless recounts in races they've WON by a slim margin instead of losing. All recounts are motivated by the loser - your ascribing blame to one and annointing the other is specious at best, propaganda at worst.

Republicans don't like counting. In the 2000, the Supreme Court stopped the counting to make sure that Bush won.

Funny, the decision only said that umpteen recounts were a waste of time since they'd all turned out in Bush's favor... nothing there about "making sure Bush won." Face it, he DID win and SCOTUS only stopped the recounts when Gore & Co. started demanding individual counties be recounted and that state workers "interpret" bad ballots against state law.

If you really believe that conspiracy crap, then I'm very sad for you.

And we now know that Scalia was in a tizzy to make sure this happened even before argument. This is the same Scalia who likes to duck hunt with Chaney during a case involving Chaney.

What the hell are you talking about?

Was the election rigged? I doubt it. Was it attempted? I don't doubt that. In a nation closely divided, we are at a point where he who cheats the best wins.

Ah, so the victor is automatically the cheater. Sounds like a loser's philosophy to me. How come no one is up in arms about questionable ballots in the 7 or so states Kerry won by SLIMMER MARGINS THAN OHIO'S?

Oh yeah, I forgot, Dems are holy and Repubs are evil.

For those that think Bush really lost, by all means ignore the government and its laws. I suspect he won but I wouldn't bet on it.

Canada is calling. Don't keep 'em waiting.

This topic is examined to night on ABC Nightline for those interested.

Who also bought into the now discredited exit polling data and raised holy hell about fraud by Republicans, when in fact the fraud was committed by THEIR OWN FRIGGIN' SOURCES.

Snide

20th January 2005, 07:00 AM

Originally posted by Capitalist
This reminds me of the 2000 elections in Palm Beach County, with the infamous butterfly ballot. There was never-ending whinning about how the ballot had caused elderly Jewish people to vote for anti-Semite Pat Buchanan, and how it was part of a conspiracy.... Except the ballots were designed by a democrat, and they were tested by democrat, in a county where almost every elected official is a democrat.

This is the same deal here. If Kerry's unproved allegations are true--than in democrat-dominated prescints it was harder to vote--my answer remains: whose fault is that?

Please provide a source to back up your claim of "never-ending whinning" about the confusing ballots being a part of a conspiracy. Did people complain? Yes. But who claimed the confusing ballot was intentiaonlly so, as you imply? I eagerly await your reply.

Snide

20th January 2005, 07:06 AM

Originally posted by Capitalist
Just like, well, let's not go there.... Just like you to impugne the source instead of addressing the issue. As such, I have nothing else to say.
Capitalist, welcome to the forum. Have you met our friend corplinx? If not, please allow me to say that you mayfind he will agree with you on more issues than not, and in the name of humor, likes to use irony from time to time.

You're welcome.

Capitalist

20th January 2005, 07:52 AM

Originally posted by Snide
Please provide a source to back up your claim of "never-ending whinning" about the confusing ballots being a part of a conspiracy. Did people complain? Yes. But who claimed the confusing ballot was intentiaonlly so, as you imply? I eagerly await your reply.

Keep waiting for this one. I'm not a link-providing machine on this forum, especially since I'm bound to be outnumbered in a political discussion with fellow skeptics. (Off the top of my head, I remember a show of the now-defunct Politically Incorrect Bill Maher show in which singer Ruben Blades called the butterfly ballot a new form of fraud, and the audience applauded wildly.) I'll leave it to the readers to evaluate my claim.

corplinx

20th January 2005, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by Capitalist
Keep waiting for this one. I'm not a link-providing machine on this forum, especially since I'm bound to be outnumbered in a political discussion with fellow skeptics. (Off the top of my head, I remember a show of the now-defunct Politically Incorrect Bill Maher show in which singer Ruben Blades called the butterfly ballot a new form of fraud, and the audience applauded wildly.) I'll leave it to the readers to evaluate my claim.

The closest thing I can find is that Dec 1 2000 the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the butterfly ballots were not so confusing as to disenfranchise voters.

I'm not sure who was pushing the notion that they did disenfranchise voters.

Your memory may just be in err.

Capitalist

20th January 2005, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by Snide
Capitalist, welcome to the forum. Have you met our friend corplinx? If not, please allow me to say that you mayfind he will agree with you on more issues than not, and in the name of humor, likes to use irony from time to time.

You're welcome.

Corplinx just commented on this thread, but... you mean to tell me there is just one other right-winger here.... Nooooo! I want my mommy!

Snide

20th January 2005, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Capitalist
Corplinx just commented on this thread, but... you mean to tell me there is just one other right-winger here.... Nooooo! I want my mommy!

Well, no, I didn't say "just one other." I wouldn't call Corplinx a right-winger though. Not sure where you got that. The board does tend to lean left, but the right-wingers here are quite a vocal minority!

Anyway, my other point (about your claim) is that it seemed pretty strong, and against what I've observed. Sure people "felt cheated," but didn't cry about conspiracy in the manner you suggested.

I've put it this way before: the ballots were screwed up in such a way that the lower intelligent on the left could easily make a mistake. The ballots were not screwed up in such a way that the lower intelligent on the right could make a similar mistake. So when morons say things like, "If you're too dumb to figure out a ballot, I don't want you voting anyway," they are of course ignoring this little fact (and that, had the tables been turned, many Bush supporters would also have accidentally voted for Buchanan. In fact, they did:

The confusion hurt Bush, too: 1,631 people punched Bush and Buchanan, whose hole was below his on the ballot. But Gore was the bigger loser: the two Gore combinations, minus the Bush-Buchanan votes, totaled 6,607 lost votes for Gore, the Post found.

Source (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/11/palmbeach.recount/)

Sucks for the left, but just because they said something about unfairness regarding this issue does not mean they cried "conspiracy!!"

Yeah, ok old and boring news, I know.

When you make a claim like you did, you should expect people to call you on it around here.

Again, welcome aboard.

crimresearch

20th January 2005, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by corplinx
JUST LIKE A CONSERVATIVE TO LINK FAUX NEWS! THEY HAVNET GOTTEN A STORY RIGHT SINCE THEY BROKE THE BUSH DUI STORY THE FRIDAY BEFORE THE 2000 ELECTION! THEY ARE PART OF THE BUSH RELECTION CAMPAIGNXOR!

Well, here...maybe it will go down easier coming from from these sources: ;) ;)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/19/politics/main667756.shtml

"...The study also finds no support for "allegations of fraud due to rigging of election equipment," which arose in a number of states, including the decisive electoral vote state of Ohio."

AND

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6840933/

"...Instead, the uncertainty and contentiousness on Election Day were the fault of recipients who leaked preliminary, incomplete data from early in the day, said Sheldon Gawiser, NBC Newsâ€™ director of elections coverage and former chairman of the consortiumâ€™s steering committee. Prominent publications that received such leaks and reported raw data out of context included Slate.com, which at the time was an editorial partner of MSNBC.com, which is a joint venture of Microsoft Corp. and NBC News"

Mrick

20th January 2005, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by Capitalist
Several issues;

1. In the case of a paper trail, there is a trade-off, not an absolute answer. You can commit fraud by tampering with the machines, like Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela, but with a paper trail, you can cheat by tampering with the ballots, like the Democrats did in Washington State this year.

2. Republicans indeed don't like counting.... fake ballots, Washington State 2004, doubtful ballots from three heavily Democratic Counties in 2000 (Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach, the same ballots from Republicans Counties were not being counted.) I mean, shame on them, stopping counts to stop fraud.

3. If you ignore the laws of the Land, you'll go to jail.

4. Nightline? Can't you come with something, you know, less histerically anti-Bush?

Let's take number 4 first. It was a fluff piece that said we always cheated in the past and the left wing is just paranoid. It wasn't anit Bush at all. It just didn't have any real analysis. There is precious little news on the Networks worth watching.

As to ballots, it is a very easy process. The person picks his candidates. The electronic vote is recorded. There is a paper ballot printed for backup. The person examines the ballot, and if correct drops in the box. Hash totals are used for verification to tie out the totals.

I have done recounts. Done properly, it isn't that difficult. My candidate lost by 3 votes. Represenatives looked at all the ballots and established the intent of the voter. At the end of the day, we conceded the loss. It isn't that hard.

As to Washington, I think we have a democratic govonor. I read the details at the time and was pretty well satisfied with the process. I do like the idea of a revote however for super close elections. But that needs to be agreed to up front. Personally, I have no problem with it.

But the fact is, Republicans don't want verifiable ballots. One should draw the worse conclusions.

Mrick

crimresearch

20th January 2005, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by Snide
Anyway, my other point (about your claim) is that it seemed pretty strong, and against what I've observed. Sure people "felt cheated," but didn't cry about conspiracy in the manner you suggested.

Perhaps Capitalist is thinking of Dem. Representative Robert Wexler's comments after being contacted by his Palm Beach constitutents, that the butterfly ballots were 'illegal', and that George and Jeb Bush 'stole the election'.

Snide

20th January 2005, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by crimresearch
Perhaps Capitalist is thinking of Dem. Representative Robert Wexler's comments after being contacted by his Palm Beach constitutents, that the butterfly ballots were 'illegal', and that George and Jeb Bush 'stole the election'. Could be. I should read up on that. If it's isolated, it sure doesn't constitute as "never-ending whinning.(sic)"

(I don't mean to pick on this typo; I just want you to know it was not MY typo. :D Plus, I've seen it spelled that way enough to know that it is often not a typo, but a bona fide misspelling.

So maybe I am picking on it... :) )

Capitalist

20th January 2005, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by Snide
Could be. I should read up on that. If it's isolated, it sure doesn't constitute as "never-ending whinning.(sic)"

(I don't mean to pick on this typo; I just want you to know it was not MY typo. :D Plus, I've seen it spelled that way enough to know that it is often not a typo, but a bona fide misspelling.

So maybe I am picking on it... :) )

Indeed you are. By golly you honor your screen name, Snide.

Snide

20th January 2005, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by Capitalist
Indeed you are. By golly you honor your screen name, Snide. NOt often enough, I'm afraid...

Gotta pick on the new guy, though. ;)

Capitalist

20th January 2005, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Snide
NOt often enough, I'm afraid...

Gotta pick on the new guy, though. ;)

P.S. I also often write British with two t's, feel free to pick on that too.

Snide

20th January 2005, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by Capitalist
P.S. I also often write British with two t's, feel free to pick on that too.

It's not as much fun when I have permission.

gnome

20th January 2005, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by Capitalist
1. In the case of a paper trail, there is a trade-off, not an absolute answer. You can commit fraud by tampering with the machines, like Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela, but with a paper trail, you can cheat by tampering with the ballots, like the Democrats did in Washington State this year.

I hadn't heard reports of ballot-tampering in Washington State, but feel free to post more info.

More to the point... with a paper trail it is not exactly a trade off--you have two methods at arriving at a result--the electronic results, and the hand count of ballots. If either or both of the counts were significantly tampered with, there would be a tremendous discrepancy between them. A successfuly conspiracy would not only have to tamper with both, but achieve the same level of success with both. THAT is just difficult enough that I wouldn't worry too much.

gnome

20th January 2005, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by corplinx
The closest thing I can find is that Dec 1 2000 the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the butterfly ballots were not so confusing as to disenfranchise voters.

I'm not sure who was pushing the notion that they did disenfranchise voters.

Your memory may just be in err.

I'm trying to factor in something that I believe was mentioned by Harrison Butterworth in Florida: that the complaint was not in the layout of the "butterfly ballot" but that poorly manufactured machines caused the holes to be out of alignment, and the news media caught hold of the "Confusing ballot" issue and ran with it instead of the real story.

Anyone got more on this, out of curiosity?

gnome

20th January 2005, 06:29 PM

Ok, not Harrison Butterworth, but Bob Butterworth... FL Attorney General in 2000.

Harrison is a name from my RL.

:o

Art Vandelay

20th January 2005, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by Random
Tempting, but that would mean that my vote would not only have to go through my local voting syndicate, but also the US Postal service. Even if I use FedEx or some such, itâ€™s just one more thing that can go wrong. Besides, there is a certain satisfaction in going to the polls and voting. Itâ€™s like a comforting ritual. You can go to the polls and drop off an absentee ballot.

BTW, those of you who have mentioned seeing different lines at different precincts: keep in mind that by chance, different precincts will have different numbers of voters. Also, they will have "clumps" arriving at different times. I worked at a "double precinct", and sometimes one line stretched out the door while the other was empty, and sometimes the situation was reversed.