Evoting Problems in Ohio 288
deus_X_machina writes "The Columbus Dispatch is reporting that a computer error involving one voting-machine cartridge gave President Bush 3,893 extra votes in a Gahanna precinct. Matthew Damschroder, director of the Franklin County Board of Elections, says the cartridge was retested yesterday and there were no problems. He couldn't explain why the computer reader malfunctioned."
Let The Games Begin (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Let The Games Begin (Score:2)
Re:Let The Games Begin (Score:2)
No matter their affiliation.
Re:Let The Games Begin (Score:2)
Re:Let The Games Begin (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sure that for each of these stories reported, 5 or more go unreported/undiscovered.
6 out of 10 voters to my precinct were not listed in the roll book at the polling place. Many of these people were long time voters, all were given provisional ballots. Their names and signatures were on the master list, but magically never made it to the polling place. The reason? A "mistake," and in a predominately Democratic area, by a predominately Republican elections board. Hmmm. Maybe I'm reading too much into that, my name was on the list, although I'm not registered as a Democrat...
Hey, but what does it matter at this point? Election's over, and there's a few countries to run. With Republicans in charge of everything, America should be on track to Bush's ideal. Let the good times roll!
Re:Let The Games Begin (Score:2, Interesting)
How I know my vote counted. (Score:2)
Well, I called home election morning, to discuss the outcome. I was informed of the progress of my vote through the system. No...they dont work at the polls. Apparently I was the only person in my district to vote for Badnarik, and some people found it amusing... I have renewed faith in the secrecy protection of
Re:Let The Games Begin (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember, the electors have not yet cast their votes, we are in the wierd area between the votes to choose electors and the actual election of the president. I woulnd't be suprised to see more of this same kind of issue coming up in the coming weeks. This does not make me feel comfortable with the electoral process in general, regardless of the outcome.
Re:Let The Games Begin (Score:5, Interesting)
Source [myway.com] - Franklin County's unofficial results had Bush receiving 4,258 votes to Democrat John Kerry's 260 votes in a precinct in Gahanna. Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct. Bush's total should have been recorded as 365.
Franklin is the only Ohio county to use Danaher Controls Inc.'s ELECTronic 1242, an older-style touchscreen voting system. Danaher did not immediately return a message for comment.
ADA and language issues w/ paper ballots (Score:2, Interesting)
E-voting also makes providing multilingual ballots to all precincts easier.
In low-turnout elections it also facilitates combining polling stations.
On the down side, there's that nasty lack of an audit trail on SOME machines.
Memo to America: Listen to Nevada [slashdot.org].
Re:Let The Games Begin (Score:2)
Article goes on to suggest that most all of these must be for the Democrats. Either way election is over recount wasn't asked for, laws need to be changed. Oh well.
Big fucking deal (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Big fucking deal (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Big fucking deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Big fucking deal (Score:5, Insightful)
regardless of who you voted for, this is fucking serious and your downplaying it really bothers me.
most of these voting machines were built by the lowest bidder using off the shelf hardware running WinCE and access. that's fine for a kiosk display or even an ATM with insured transactions but when we are talking about democracy, the fundamental decision making process of our government, we deserve something more secure and advanced. we deserve nothing less than an open-source solution, peer-reviewed and tested.
it makes me want to bring my stun gun to the polls and see how the machine registers a vote for 500,000 volts...
Re:Big fucking deal (Score:3, Insightful)
God isn't beautiful to have computers in the voting process so anytime something fishy happens everyone, especially the media, can write it off as a "glitch". Everyone knows computers have "glitches" so everyone nods and says it must have been a "glitch". Say no more.
Maybe it was a glitch, though maybe it was a "glitch" in an attempt to rig an election. Someone tried to throw a bunch of votes to Bush and screwed up so badly it stuck out like a sore thumb. So what exactly is stopp
Re:Big fucking deal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Big fucking deal (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Big fucking deal (Score:2)
Re:Big fucking deal (Score:4, Insightful)
Truth is, both parties have been stupidly pushing for these machines, and someone from either party could hack them. It's probably also true, with all the information that's come out about how easy these things are to hack, at least one machine somewhere got hacked. It's also true that inconsistancies pop up here and there without foul play, and I'm not convinced these machines are bug-free enough to be fully trusted even if we assume no hacking.
All the more reason for a paper-trail. Personally, I've been pushing for some system that not-only has a paper-trail, but one where the printout is visable (perhaps behind glass?) so that voters can verify by sight that the printout matches their vote (if they choose to pay attention). Personally, I'd also like to see something in the system that corrolates each recorded vote with a voter, ensuring that a hacker can't get the machine to log and print extra phantom votes.
Either way, that these machines appear to be unreliable should, undoubtedly, be reported. However, hyping up the fact that this may have benefitted Bush is just going to fan the flames here. (And keep in mind that 'may have', since we don't know how many irregularities there were, which ones benefitted Bush, which Kerry, or whether the irregularities were large enough anywhere to change the outcome of the election.) It increases the perception by liberals that "Bush stole the election again" and increases the perception by conservatives that "Liberals are going to whine about every ridiculous unsubstantiated claim whenever they don't get their way." But you know what? Unless you have something resembling evidence, it won't change anything. Hence-- flamebait.
Re:Big fucking deal (Score:2)
I agree almost completly with your whole post. I admitably did not read the article but I think we need a little more information than what is in the summary. I think it boarders on flamebait.
Re:Big fucking deal (Score:4, Funny)
Hell, posting anything on slashdot is flamebait.
Re:Big fucking deal (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the same argument that priests used to protect other priests when there was sexual abuse.
This only gets interesting (Score:2)
Everybody knows the evoting machines are shit.
Re:This only gets interesting (Score:3, Informative)
Well, yes (Score:4, Interesting)
Exactly (Score:2)
Desire != intent (Score:5, Insightful)
My statement would go into a pair of safe deposit boxes controlled by attorneys with secret instructions to open the contents and make them public if they don't hear from me in 180 days.
I'd have Diebold by the balls.
This is why it would be stupid to try to steal the election this way. It's too hard to keep secret.
Re:Desire != intent (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Desire != intent (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Desire != intent (Score:2)
Re:Desire != intent (Score:2)
Re:Desire != intent (Score:2)
My statement would go into a pair of safe deposit boxes controlled by attorneys with secret instructions to open the contents and make them public if they don't hear from me in 180 days.
I'd have Diebold by the balls.
A disgruntled former employee claims
No one would listen, and the order would never be made in writing.
Now the CEO would have credibility, and would need to be passed a few thousand C-notes. This is just a matter of giving his company some contracts, and it is even legal for the federa
Re:Exactly (Score:3, Funny)
Are you saying that there is no intent to steal votes by Nader? :-)
Re:Exactly (Score:2)
Re:Well, yes (Score:2)
How was the correct count derived? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How was the correct count derived? (Score:3, Informative)
Yesterday, they checked the non-removable memory banks in the voting machine and to 115 Bush votes.
Since the non-removable memory banks matched the removable cardridge, they used that as the offical Bush vote from the machine.
The other 2 machines had a total of 250 Bush votes.
Adding 250 to 115 gives 365 Bush votes total for the precinct.
About 30 more of these... (Score:3, Insightful)
Does not change the election, BUT... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately I see way too many Republicans saying "it's those sore loser Democrats trying to cause trouble". And quite a few Democrats saying "this proves the election was wrong"
We MUST investigate these machines. This is the best time to do so, there is now tons of proof that they are screwed up, but the investigation can be just into the machines themselves and the people behind them, without any threat to the stability of our government.
But as long as people keep whining about "sore loser Democrats" or "election was wrong" then it will discourage any investigaton. This is BAD, BAD BAD!! These machines may throw the NEXT election. And Republicans had better realize that a single wild hippie Liberal in the wrong place could use them to throw it toward the left, this is NOT a partisian issue! Everybody should be in agreement that these machines need to be gotten rid of NOW. Don't blow our best chance by making this a partisian mess.
Re:Does not change the election, BUT... (Score:5, Insightful)
I haven't heard any such thing. As a Republican, let me give you a different response:
My guy won. If there are any doubts about the accuracy of the vote, then I want them straightened out now so that everyone (discounting the conspiracy theorists [0]) will know that he was legitimately elected. The last thing I want is to hear another four years of "selected, not elected". I give my full support to groups investigating these matters for the purpose of getting accurate results, and everyone I've talked to feels the same way.
[0] By that, I mean the black helicopter types, not the average skeptical Joe on the street.
Re:Does not change the election, BUT... (Score:2)
Re:Does not change the election, BUT... (Score:2)
why not? that is after all how the system works in usa. you elect people who select the president.
Re:Does not change the election, BUT... (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree. There is not too much doubt about the fact that the president won. But that doesn't mean that the investigations won't turn up foul play. Nixon was ridiculously in the lead when his guys did that little Watergate thing. And Nixon's mistake was finding out about it and trying to cover it up. The president would be smart to start the investigation now. It would convince the average Joe, impress a lot of liberals, and he would gain the respect of the average
Re:Does not change the election, BUT... (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't follow. First off, several counties recorded over 70% in favor of Kerry. For instance, Chicago was 81% (802K) Kerry and only 18% (180K) Bush. Admitedly, none of the metropolitan areas in Ohio hit more than 67% (Cleveland area), but then, the validi
Re:Does not change the election, BUT... (Score:3, Interesting)
Vote count problem in San Francisco (Not Diebold) (Score:3, Informative)
Meanwhile, in San Francisco, a glitch occurred with software designed for the city's new "ranked-choice voting," in which voters list their top three choices for municipal offices. If no candidate gets a majority of first-place votes outright, voters' second and third-place preferences are then distributed among candidates who weren't eliminated in the first round.
When the San Francisco Department of Elections tried a test run on Wednesday of the program that does the redistribution, some of the votes didn't get counted and skewed the results, director John Arntz said.
"All the information is there," Arntz said. "It's just not arriving the way it was supposed to."
A technician from the Omaha, Neb. company that designed the software, Election Systems & Software Inc., was working to diagnose and fix the problem.
Come on now! (Score:5, Funny)
And as if the people in the USA would stand for their black box voting machines to be designed by a pro-Bush partisan. It's just not realistic, so stop doubting and Praise Jesus. God Bless America.
The faulty machines were not Diebold (Score:5, Informative)
Franklin is the only Ohio county to use Danaher Controls Inc.'s ELECTronic 1242, an older-style touchscreen voting system. Danaher did not immediately return a message for comment.
Re:Come on now! (Score:2)
There is a possible third option, you know. I could be joking. FWIW, the machines weren't actually made Diebold, but we can only hope they used the ultra-secure password-protected Microsoft Access databases as well.
Mainstream media? (Score:4, Informative)
CNN [cnn.com]
Foxnews [foxnews.com]
BBC [bbc.co.uk]
CBC [bag.cbc.ca]
Aljzeera's search engine is not working properly today; oh well.
Ohio News Now [onnnews.com]
Anyone care to tell me why this simply isn't being reported at all? I've never heard of the Columbus Dispatch. Nor have I heard of the Washington Dispatch (one other place I've seen run the story).
Is it too new to be picked up?
Is it not considered newsworthy as just correcting a routine error?
Is it being censored? And if so then why by every news company including those outside of US juristiction?
Forgive me for being a bit skeptical on this story, but I do tend to assume that vote talliers can spot an order of magnitude error.
Re:Mainstream media? (Score:3, Informative)
Or perhaps the San Fransisco gate reporting it [sfgate.com].
Maybe Yahoo New's report [yahoo.com]?
C'mon man, turn on the TV... normally I'd say just because it's not in the mainstream media doesn't mean it's not true. But this time it is...
Voting: Stuck in the 19th century (Score:5, Interesting)
Wall Street has volume in the hundreds of millions per hour. Every transaction must be documented and has a paper trail (or backup report) somewhere, and every participant can be held accountable. Failure to comply with the law can and does result in jail time for offenders.
II.
We have a world-wide network of ATM machines. Each produces a paper receipt, often with an internal duplicate copy for auditing purposes. Each customer has a unique network ID and a secret PIN. Many systems automatically detects fraud-like activity automatically notify customers via cell-phone within one minute of transaction being completed. Again: hundreds-of-thousands, even millions, of transactions happening hourly.
III.
The Federal Reserve processes millions of "paper ballots" (cheques) daily. Each "ballot" is optically scanned and routed to the correct party, with errors approaching zero. Fair system: errors totaling 0.01 dollars or greater are penalized with a monetary fine. 100% accuracy rate built-in and required by law.
Even during the 9/11 terrorist attack, the New York Federal Reserve - one block from WTC - managed move their operation to New Jersey and complete day's "ballot" processing.
Conclusion #1
"Help" America Vote Act is Orwellian double-speak at its finest. Federal Elections demand a Federal Employees, Federal Training, Federal Standard. We can have separate elections with their own method for local/state/federal offices. State/Local constitutions can easily be amended to this end - should be uncontroversial.
Federal elections should be fully staffed and trained, just like the TSA (Transportaion Security Administration). Some will argue that Federal Government is wrong solution for problem and will advocate private corporations as a solution. Some people are morons. TSA is many magnitudes superior to pre-existing private security (equivalent: Diebold), which allowed 9/11 slaughter. At the very least, system can be audited without resorting to lawsuit.
Conclusion #2
As with securities exchange, ATM, Federal Reserve examples cited above, electoral process can & should have accuracy approaching 100% accuracy and same-day efficiency. Primary obstacle is lack of incentive. All examples cited involve monetary transactions, which Americans are notorious for valuing above Liberty.
Ergo, values of average politician/American must change to value liberty. Of course, the only party that can change things is the party in power, and as long as they are in power "the system works" (Note: not a cut at any particular party, as this cuts both ways).
Real change will only occur after nation-destroying election scandal and ensuing violent revolution. Call me an optimist.
Unfortunately, many choose ruminate about voter irregularities as being part of a imperfect, but practical, system. We often hear these folks, when confronted with vote tally irregularies, shake their head and sigh "perhaps we'll never know for sure."
This attitude is completely unacceptable when elections are being decided by 1,000 votes out of 2 million.
Consider:
If my employer's Daily Statement of Condition was off by $1,000 out of $2MM, and I told our Controller that "perhaps we'll never know" why the difference existed, I would be fired immediately.
It's mind-blowing that certain parties feel this is acceptable standard for United States electoral system.
Problem: how to make voting analogous to monetary transactions?
A MODEST PROPOSAL
Make the election a lottery. Ten lucky voters get $10,000,000 tax-free. Winning chances would be better than "Powerball," which has far more than 100,000,000 tickets and odds of winning approaching zero. Turnout would easily top 60% each election, and voters would demand election integrity to ensure their chance for jackpot.
This is a no-brainer proposition that will never become reality in current America. Sometimes genius isn't a
Re:Good god (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good god (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot Slant (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot Slant (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot Slant (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot Slant (Score:2)
Study on Media Bias (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot Slant (Score:3, Interesting)
The sad part of it all is that I used
Re:Slashdot Slant (Score:4, Insightful)
On the total reversal, if Kerry had won, a Replublican STILL wouldn't have tipped a reporter off.. at least in my opinion. This is simply because, as Democrat friends of mine have said, "Democrats are whiners.".
If that Republican gave a shit about democracy and the sanctity of the election system, then he damn well should start talking since that's the only way the problems will get fixed.
Re:Slashdot Slant (Score:5, Interesting)
someone--anyone--
Re:That was cute... (Score:2)
Heh. I'm thinking the mods didn't try to load the story within the first few minutes of it being posted. Instead of loading up the story page and comments, it just loaded a page that said "Nothing for you to see here. Move along."
Re:hmm (Score:2)
I think it's pretty clear that they mean it in the same sense as when people say "pink is the new black."
Bush's second term (Score:2, Interesting)
Apparently the republicans are invulnerable to truth and reason. Fairly or unfairly, they've taken the election. Since the conservative trolls and their mod abusing partners are still running rampant, let me cut to the chase.
We as democrats face a strategic gap. Our agenda of promoting civil rights and defending the lower class and the environment isn't grabbing the middle aged voters. In order to turn back the tide of partisan villification and party unilateralism we need to have refer
Re:Bush's second term (Score:2, Insightful)
If you want to win some more votes, stop alienating people, stop calling the president horrible names or stupid euphemisms (Moore, I'm looking right at YOU) every chance you get, and drop the intellectual superiority schtick. We have DIFFERENT, not worse, ideologies...and a year ago many of us broke away and wanted to vote against Bush, but felt alienated and belittled by Democrats who didn't want to represent us, but wanted t
This is exactly what I'm talking about (Score:2)
First he tries to make a joke out of the political statement I made. There's nothing humorous about my post, but trb0001 takes it upon himself to try to take the wind out of my sails. He's consistently partisan.. we see a lot of people like him here lately.
trb, I know you know this but I'm going to say it for the benefit of anyone who might be confused by your little tirade. My post is not a joke. I am addressing fellow liberals (of which trb0001 is NOT one). So of course he
Re:This is exactly what I'm talking about (Score:5, Insightful)
And while you restrategize, you really do need to pay attention to what trb0001 is saying. You're not going to win the 2008 election by insulting the 51% of the people who voted for Bush. If you continue insulting Christians, rural inhabitants, and blue collar workers, you will lose the next election. If you want to win you need to be the party of egalitarian inclusion, not elitist exclusion.
Re:Bush's second term (Score:3, Insightful)
Now then, I'm glad to see a liberal actually trying to figure out the disconnect liberals have with all those red states instead of dismissing them as "stupid" or "stolen." I think you're missing the point on religion, though.
Christians are never going to flock to the Democractic party until the general attitude of Democrats and their leaders changes. The d
Re:Bush's second term (Score:2)
First, let me say that I'm an agnostic coming from a formerly catholic-now laic country and wish we'd wipe the idea of religions (ANY) out of our lives once and for all.
Now, having said that, what you say about how Americans view Christians is true (aside from the mental illness which seems too strong a term). However, it's not only on the democrat side. It's just a general perception that probably was inherited from the protestant waves of immigrants before USA was USA.
Now, republicans have a tendancy t
Re:Bush's second term (Score:4, Insightful)
I would have laughed my ass off if they made a joke about the Qoran, but alas they didn't. My main reason for being antagonistic towards Christians is that they are antagonistic towards me. I've been called a baby killer because I am pro-choice, I have been called evil because I'm an atheist. The damn Christians just won't leave me alone, they want to teach creationism in our schools, they want people to pledge their allegence to their god etc.
I honestly feel like going on a crusade against all religions. Fundamentalist Islam is very violent, but go back about 7 centuries or so and you will find Christianity was very violent and Islam was tolerant. The lesson? Any religion can be abused for political gain, and the more false promises you make to people about heaven and martrydom, the more feverent they become.
Religion was a quanit little idea, a way to attempt to explain the universe around us before the invention of microscopes and telescopes. However, it is completely useless in modern days, and just halts the progress of humanity. I yearn for the day when there are no churches, no mosques, no Hindu temples, no Buddhist shrines, no sinogogues, just people, people who realize that we are only around here for a short time and the best way to get through that is to help everyone out. Until then I will be indignant towards Christians, Jews, Muslims etc, esp. if they feel it's their duty to tell me what a horrible human being I am for not believing in their version of "Truth"
Re:Bush's second term (Score:2)
Perhaps not all of these "religions" are quite what you think, nor are they intended for what you think they're intended for. A microscope can let you view some of the inner-workings of a cell, but it can not give moral guidance. A telescope can get you a better view of the planets, but it can't tell you how to cope wi
Re:Bush's second term (Score:4, Insightful)
And that is why the democratic party will never win those red states back. QED. You completely dismiss as quaint and backwards something that is a fundamental part of someone else's life...and then you want them to give you their support. It won't happen.
Bush likes to talk about "reaching out" to those who disagree with him. That's what the democrats need to do if they're going to attract Christians. They need to reach out to them, without the antagonization and without condescension, and find common ground. There are Christians who believe in a progressive tax system. There are MANY Christians who are pascifists and believe America's foreign policy is on the wrong track. Bring these people to your table by compromising with them on religion.
Next time you encounter a Christian who votes for Bush because of moral values, sit down with them and have this conversion. Say, "I respect your faith although I do not share it. We have values common to all Americans, which stem from the faith of the Founders. These are values like freedom, fair play, and basic human rights. The teachings of Jesus bear these out. We in the democratic party have ideas and plans that can help make America and the world a better place. They include our plans for health care, the environment, the economy, and a more diplomatic foreign policy. However, in order to accomplish these things to help you, we need to come to an understanding about the place of religion in government. Look at the way Jesus interacted with the Roman government. He didn't. He never tried to lobby the Roman senate to reshape their laws to his vision. In the same way, Christians must understand that is not the place of government to foster Christianity...it is the place of Christians to foster Christianity. Now let's come together on the things on which we agree in order to accomplish our mutual goals."
An attitude like that can turn red states blue. However, this will not happen. The elites in the Democratic party are openly hostile to Christianity. Christians are not as dumb as you think...they can spot a liar. So unless Democrats can actually put their anti-Christian bigotry behind them, they will never attract Christians to their cause. It will take time, but it can be done. For instance, before the civil rights movement, the Democratic party was just as racist and intollerant of blacks as the Republican party, but they spent a decade throwing rascists out of their party and embracing minorities in urban centers and the south. The democratic party purged themselves of their anti-black bigotry, where the Republican party did not. Only in the last two decades or so have the Republicans attempted to do the same thing, and that's why Republicans are making strong inroads with minority voters, as well. Unless the Democratic party can acknowledge and eliminate their anti-Christian bigotry with the same zeal they did their anti-black bigotry in the 50's and 60's, the democrats will never be a national party again, but will stay relagated to urban centers only.
Re:Bush's second term (Score:5, Interesting)
Please, Christians in this country love to play the victim, while the persecute those who do not agree with them. I'm sorry, but I am just plain tired of Christians, I'm plain tired of, "Oh, Islam isn't a violent religion, just a few extremists" BS(The extremists are going to a mosque somewhere, and if these muslims aren't complicit they are complacent). I'm just so fucking sick and tired of preachers who say that because I'm a "liberal atheist", HItler and Mother Theresa are equivalent to me. When Christians stop persecuting atheists, when muslims stop blowing themselves up, when Jews stop shooting children in Palestine, when Hindus stop going on rampages murdering people simply because they are of a lower caste, then maybe I will start to "tolerate" religion.
Re:Bush's second term (Score:4, Insightful)
You're getting way off track.
I'm a proud independent agnostic liberal. I do not hate Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. I don't even distinguish between them. I see people, not religions.
What gets my goat is when the fundamentalists in the said religions use their religion as a justification for their political beliefs. When you invoke God(s), you are effectively saying that if you are not for my policies, you are against God(s).
See, its okay if I strap a bomb on to myself and kill civilians; GOD WANTS ME TO DO IT. Its okay if I deny good people rights based on their sexual orientation; GOD WANTS ME TO DO IT. Its okay if I kill doctors who perform abortions; GOD WANTS ME TO DO IT.
When you invoke the supposed creator of the universe, its hard to argue against that viewpoint. Religion can make people do insane things, which is why it isn't a good idea to base one's politics on it.
If there is a God(s), I highly doubt he (they) wants to be basis of American politics.
Re:Bush's second term (Score:4, Insightful)
You want Democrats to do better in the South? You might want to try not-labeling southerners as slave-owners, racists, and bigots, just because they don't vote your way. Not every southerner owns a pickup truck with the confederate flag painted on the hood, and not everyone who disagrees with you does so out of ignorance or malice.
Re:Bush's second term (Score:2)
Never asked for one.
My short response to the conservatives
Not a conservative.... what do you have to say to me?
Ok, well I'd advise that maybe, if you want to look for ways to improve your party's standing in the American public, you stop alienating independents in order to rally your troops. You might do better to listen to the concerns of people who aren't already sworn loyalists to the democratic party, and try to get
Re:hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Insofar as you turn this into a political flame war, you're just distracting people from the real issue-- the use of electronic voting either needs to be reformed or ended.
Re:hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
On another topic, what happened to "no taxation without representation"? How easily we forget.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:hmm (Score:2)
And to add to my first post on fear. Kerry would have won on the ffear vote as well. The fear of illegal abortions, the fear of bush, the fear of a draft, and the fear of an increasingly religous government.
Re:hmm (Score:2)
personally i doubt that bush understands much of anything beyond how to fasten his pants in the morning.
-a "librrrl" in florida
Re:hmm (Score:2)
As we saw in 2000, the popular vote count means nothing. It's what happens in a few particular places that makes all the difference. Makes it that much easier to screw with things too. Especially when the half of the country that got what they wanted will deliberately ignore and play down the many many problems that caused a lot of votes to be lost. I guess being in touch with the rest of the country means being willing to ignore serious problems with the the systems we use for voting and the people who
Re:hmm (Score:2)
Re:hmm (Score:2)
We have an isolated problem, which was identified and corrected, and regardless of the results of the electoral college or the general will of the people expressed in the popular vote, he was already willing to spend the next four years decrying a "stolen" election, rather than reflecting inward, discovering what about his party's message (or lack thereof) failed to connect with the majority of voters, and attempting to correct it. It borders on cognitive dissonance.
First of all, the problem is not isola
Re:hmm (Score:2)
They were probably balanced out by the criminal and borderline criminal acts the Democrats engaged in prior to the election. There are lists of those, too. Any voter fraud is unacceptable, but to claim that Republicans are the only sinners is wilful blindness.
Re:hmm (Score:3, Informative)
They were probably balanced out by the criminal and borderline criminal acts the Democrats engaged in prior to the election.
Umm, actually no, they weren't. Read about it here [moshthevote.com]. You may want to skip about 2/3s of the way down the page to this part:
Re:hmm (Score:2)
Re:hmm (Score:2)
Someone points out some vote problem, second person launches off into "why cant you liberals accept...".
Which is the same point I made in my original post, which has now been modded to -1 Troll. The post to which I responded did not just point out a vote problem, he pointed out a vote problem and said this was obvious proof that the Republicans rigged the election and stole it from the democrats. Then I launched off into "why can't you liberals accept..." I'm not denying vot
Re:there goes (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:why not? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:why not? (Score:2)
That is simply untrue. The LP had 707 candidates running for elected office nationwide in positions ranging from Township Advisory Boards to State Senator and everything in between.
http://www.lp.org/campaigns/candidates.php?year=2 0 04 [lp.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:why not? (Score:2)
As for the style of ballot, it's pencil and paper, with an optical scan.
I'm just going to keep holding on for Instant Runoff Voting [tinyurl.com].
Re: (Score:2)