Black Box Voting 2008 Election Protection Toolkit 259
Gottesser writes "Bev Harris over at Black Box Voting has done everyone a favor and released her 2008 Election Protection toolkit as an ebook. It's like Cliff notes of Bev's 8+ years of experience on the front lines of the modern voting rights movement. The ebook presents succinct information to get individuals actively involved in the full-contact sport that is democracy. The target audience is those who believe that the political process requires more than just showing up to vote once every four years those who know that something's up with those voting machines. You may remember Bev Harris from her Emmy-nominated HBO documentary 'Hacking Democracy.' I've been working on election integrity issues in Ohio for some time now and have met Bev several times. Her work is nothing less than groundbreaking. Please check it out."
Theft is not concern #1 (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares about election theft when the average voter isn't capable of making an informed choice in the first place? And no, I don't mean the 50% picking the other party, I do mean that 90% of the people voting hardly have a clue about the issues at stake.
I hate to sound like an elitist but when most other people so clearly demonstrate they are not, it leaves one little choice but to think that way..
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Democracy is worthless without people making informed decisions, and yet you can't force people to become informed. So what is the human race to do.
Re: (Score:2)
I've always said a voting ballot should be a multiple-choice test, where the voter has to prove that he or she has at least some clue what the candidates stand for. It shouldn't be a test that requires above-average intelligence, just an above-average (current average) effort to make an informed decision. Only votes with x out of y questions answered correctly should be counted, and the questions could be something relatively objective, like matching key campaign issues to the candidates.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
(1) When does human life begin?
A. Conception
B. some time later
C. I don't know.
D. It shouldn't matter. The US has already legalised the murder of human life forms for the purpose of self-defense (don't think death row, think tresspassing in Texas). Just kill it.
Re:Theft is not concern #1 (Score:5, Interesting)
Who cares about election theft when the average voter isn't capable of making an informed choice in the first place? And no, I don't mean the 50% picking the other party, I do mean that 90% of the people voting hardly have a clue about the issues at stake.
It absolutely horrifies me to think that a good chunk of the people who'll be casting a ballot this fall still believe that Iraq had something to do with the 9/11 attacks.
If you've read any of my posts you know I'm an Obama supporter... But I'm really not so rabid as to suggest that my opinions are the only valid ones. There's plenty of debate over most of the major issues and folks are perfectly free to disagree with me. But I really wish folks would disagree based on actual facts.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Good point. But just to be fair, maybe you should also mention the people who believe that raising taxes on the rich will not make the economy worse? Or, how about the people who think that more protectionism is a good thing?
I consider these views as wrong as the one about Iraq and 9/11. But, that is the nature of a democracy and you have to take the bad with the good. The stupid people aren'
Tax cuts for the rich (Score:3, Informative)
Check out Wikipedia's page on jobs created during each president's term [wikipedia.org].
Sort that chart of jobs created during each president's term [wikipedia.org] by the Average Annual Increase:
(Notice that the sort in wikipedia is text based - after sorting, you have to mentally move the top two entries to the bottom to get the real numeric sort.)
The sort neatly puts ALL democrats at the top of the chart, and ALL republicans at the bottom, with one democrat exception (Roosevelt/Truman, who would have placed third best as a Republican).
Re: (Score:2)
2. Correlation is not causation. Economic forces take years to play out. The current downturn for example is a result of (in my opinion) policies from 2001/02.
3. You can increase the number of jobs by doing many things that harm the economy. The make work programs of the New Deal created a lot of jobs. But it was done with capital that was desperately needed in the private sector.
4. The point of my post is to show that both sides see the o
Indeed, Let Us Be Fair (Score:2)
I consider these views as wrong as the one about Iraq and 9/11.
Really? On what basis? The deal with Iraq and 9/11 is pretty solid; they had nothing to do with 9/11. It's a falsehood. On the other hand, many people disagree on the effect of taxing the rich.
For instance, the top tax bracket in the US is 35%, for everyone making more than roughly $350k. (Note that McCain doesn't think you're rich until you're making $500k, so technically the rich are being taxed the same as the upper middle class there - that both works for and against your argument.) Let us note that the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I take issue with your statement that raising tax rates on the rich negatively affects the economy. Do you have any relevant, modern, post 1970 examples of your claim? I would note that in the 1980's and 1990's, in Minnesota, that higher and a more fair tax rates, when the tax rates are measured as a percentage of income, coincided with a much better than average economy for the state. In the last decade, lower taxes in the state have coincided with below average economic performance as compared with the
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm, Iraq was being dealt with via weapons inspectors and sanctions.
Bush got impatient, wanted to settle an old family score and wanted some oil. Period.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The only link between Iraq and '95 OKC bombing was a conversation between American
Oklahoma City?!?! (Score:2)
Whoever modded you insightful didn't read closely enough. Are you seriously claiming Iraq had any involvement of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995? Even the Bush administration isn't that dumb. That attack (the largest terrorist attack in the US pre-911) was domestic terrorism by right-wing nut-job Timothy McVeigh. His confession stated his reason
Re: (Score:2)
You know, over the past few years, it's gotten harder and harder around here to tell the dumbassed crazies from the legitimate trolls.
Re: (Score:2)
As for the rest of your post, if Iraq was such a threat, then maybe we shouldn't have sent Rumsfeld there under the Reagan administration to give aid & arms to Hussein!
This is how it goes, the British were ripping off Mosaddeq in Iran in the 1950s, Mosaddeq didn't like it and threatened to cut off oil to the Briti
Re: (Score:2)
But saying Iraq had no ties to 9/11, while possibly technically true, does not mean there was no threat or possible justification.
It's not just technically true, it is true. Not one of the people involved in the attacks on 11 September were from Iraq. They weren't financed by or trained in Iraq. In fact, the large majority were from Saudi Arabia.
There may have well been a huge threat from Iraq, but they didn't attack US soil in 2001, and our evidence for going to war with them was specious at best.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, Iraq was a real threat and needed to be dealt with.
I can imagine Saddam talking to one of his generals and saying: Seriously, USA is a real threat and needs to be dealth with.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the bipartisan 9/11 commission said [9-11commission.gov], "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." [emphasis
Absolute Insanity (Score:2)
1) There is no evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Not a shred. Never been found. "Maybe not" doesn't cut it. If there is evidence Saddam knew of the attack, by all means cite a source. I've yet to hear a single credible, confirmed story.
2) Iraq may have been involved in state sponsored terrorism - at least so far as we claimed. But please, please cite some evidence showing they were involved, as a nation, in any of those attacks. That some of the attackers were Iraqis is not valid, unless you think th
Re: (Score:2)
So, how many UN resolutions have the USA violated ? Or doesn't invading Iraq without UN sanction counts ?
I don't like Saddam anymore than you guys do but, c'mon. Glass roof anyone ?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, there's always the theory that the 90% who have no clue will even out at roughly 45% on each side so that the election will be decided by the remaining 10%.
Re: (Score:2)
The formal name for that is the "Miracle of Aggregation" and is the ultimate answer to Plato's plan for "philosopher-kings": pure democracy would theoretically get the same results, because the ignorant will cancel.
But there's a difference between ignorance (correct average, but high standard deviation) and irrationality (low standard deviation, but average is far from correct). One economist I read, Bryan Caplan, argued that voters better meet irrational than ignorant so their errors don't cancel, in his
Re: (Score:2)
And if you're wrong? If the majority wishes to vote for the same candidate as you? ...but that majority doesn't vote because they fear their vote won't be counted?
What then?
Get. Off. Your. Fucking. Ass. And. Go. Vote.
It's called a self-fulfilling prophecy. You predict what will happen if you don't act, then you don't act.
I could do the same thing by standing in the middle of the road during a snow storm and looking for a city bus to come my way. When I step into the lane it's in, I proclaim that the bus wil
Re: (Score:2)
I have to agree with the parent post.
Get off your ass and go vote.
Even more, try and show other people they should also vote. Specially people who would support the same candidate.
It is all a process and won't happen overnight. But if you manage to get an "independent" candidate more notice this election, maybe on the next one more people would be willing to vote outside the 2-party. Even if he doesn't win right now, your vote can still make a difference.
Re: (Score:2)
I often find myself coting for a third party candidate. The biggest hope that I have is that the third party can rake in more than 5% nationwide, which then qualifies them for many of the major party perks. As long as the third party doesn't self destruct before the next major election, like Ross Perot, then there is a chance at a decent running. With the amount of money that could be injected, the ignorant masses wont feel like they will be throwing away a vote on a party that they agree with the next time
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uninformed? I always check the left checkbox because the republicans say I'm on the left!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I have seen tremendous displays of political ignorance on Slashdot; in fact, a lot of people here take pride in such ignorant statements as "both parties are the same."
Re: (Score:2)
Obama looks taller and he has good hair, he'd get my vote!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you feel that politics, law and economics are easier to grasp than quantum mechanics, fine, but I am not convinced.
Good for you that you have first hand info on most issues, but what I'm trying to get across: 90% of the population doesn't know what the DMCA or net neutrality are, or why it might affect them. But that doesn't make the issues irrelevant, nor their choices informed.
Oh, and I didn't mean to claim I'm part of the 10% that does know it all, for most issues I'm probably just as clueless as the
Re: (Score:2)
what I'm trying to get across: 90% of the population doesn't know what the DMCA or net neutrality are
Do you really think those are "the big issues" for 90% of the population ? That kind of stuff only affect us "few".
For the other 90%, the big issues is (un)employment, education, having money to pay the bills (because of their US$6/h job).
Yes, I agree most of them don't understand those issues either, but your examples sucks. If you think those are the big issues USA have right now, you really should take a reality check.
Re: (Score:2)
In China, you can stand as an independent, but no parties other than the Communist party are allowed.
In Iran, parties are allowed, but in order to stand you have to be approved as a candidate by the ruling theocratic elite.
In Palestine, you have to dare to stand for election in a place where doing so will get you shot.
None of those places are democracies.
don't waste your time (Score:4, Interesting)
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ4SSvVbhLw [youtube.com]
Re:don't waste your time (Score:5, Funny)
Did somebody just post the subject "don't waste your time" with two links to YouTube videos? I can't even begin to tell you what's wrong with that!
Work-around: absentee ballot (Score:2)
You don't need to be out of town or anything to get an absentee ballot. All you have to do is request one ahead of time.
Come on, people; is this so difficult?
Re: (Score:2)
Not true... (Score:2)
Every state has different rules on what's a valid reason for an absentee ballot.
I've only done it once (when I was going to be on a business trip), and although I found it much slower to vote as I was looking up people's voting records and such while filling out the ballot, I felt as if I had made much better informed decisions on my choices, rather than just going by name recognition or party affiliation.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to be out of town or anything to get an absentee ballot. All you have to do is request one ahead of time.
Come on, people; is this so difficult?
Last election I actually was out of town. I'd requested an absentee ballot well before the deadline, and received it with plenty of time to spare.
Two days after the election (*), we received letters from the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections saying that there had been an error with the original absentee ballots that had been distributed, don't use those ones because they won't count, here are replacement ballots to use, sorry for the mistake.
I do not intend to vote absentee again.
(*) The letters were m
Archive.org (Score:5, Interesting)
On page 48 (or 24 since the PDF has two document pages per PDF page) of http://www.blackboxvoting.org/toolkit2008.pdf [blackboxvoting.org] they recommend keeping a sequence of snapshots of the web pages reporting the raw results to detect any anomalies.
Now keeping snapshots of webpages to analyze how they change sounds exactly like what Archive.org was designed for. It would be nice if on the night of the election, Archive.org set their refresh (?) rate for those pages abnormally high. Then the data can be used by everyone and not just those who thought ahead of time to take the snapshots.
Be an election judge (Score:5, Insightful)
The single most important thing you can do to protect our democracy is to volunteer as an election judge -- or poll worker, or election inspector, or whatever you call us in your state.
It's easy, it's fun, and we desperately need more people under 80 to do it.
I started right after the election debacle in 2000. Call your city elections department NOW while you can still get into training sessions. Make sure that your local voting is clean, fair, legal, and trustworthy. It all depends on volunteers!
Re:Be an election tech support (Score:2, Informative)
Mod Parent UP (Score:2)
sheesh... what a day to not have mod-points! ...and I'm not even a 'Merkin!
Vendors *Now Hiring* Support Techs (Score:2)
BlackBoxVoting.org published an announcement [bbvforums.org] that voting machine vendors are now hiring more support techs, asking people with skills who want to protect democracy from broken voting systems to get paid to do it:
Showing up how often? (Score:2)
"The target audience is those who believe that the political process requires more than just showing up to vote once every four years"
You mean they show up once every two years, at least? Because even at just the federal level, there's more than just presidential elections. That's what you're alluding to, right? Or did the frequency of attendance not cross your mind?
On a good cycle, we might get 60 % of the enfranchised to show up for a presidential election. Instead of giving even more homework assignm
How hard is this (Score:2)
I'm really not sure why this is so hard. A simple display terminal where to users votes (let the parties haggle over layout, yes it does matter but it's a political issue) that prints out a filled out ballot that's human and machine readable and maybe even tallies things internally. Human checks over what the machine did and deposits into traditional locked box with observers from at least two political party's watching it. Have the human readable version be authoritative and the official count. Give th
What's Bev Smoking Now? (Score:2)
Though I'm as much in favor of transparency as the next guy, doesn't this lady give up?
Re:Diebold's confession (Score:5, Insightful)
We already know in advance that the election is going to be as rigged as the GOP believes they can get away with. Diebold was forced to admit it. Fortunately, Obama's success this November will be too sweeping for even the usual election-stealing shenanigans to saddle us with four more years of war, corruption, lies, and deepening economy woes.
Honestly, folks like you worry me.
I'm sick of W's policies and can't wait to get him out of office... McCain looks like more of the same... I'd love to see Obama in office... And so far it really doesn't look like McCain is going to provide much of a challenge...
But I keep seeing people completely dismiss the Republican ticket. I keep seeing people talk like it's a done-deal, like the Democrats are already in office.
I really don't want to get stuck with McCain just because we all sat on our asses and congratulated ourselves on a job well-done, when it hadn't even been done yet.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I cannot see any similarities between Bush and McCain beyond their oppinions of the Surge. Those differences are precisely why I was leaning Barr in this election.
Re:Diebold's confession (Score:4, Informative)
And so far it really doesn't look like McCain is going to provide much of a challenge...
I'd hate for something measly like facts to get in your way, but there is the small problem that McCain is leading in the Gallup polls today 49% - 44%. Yup, no challenge at all.
Thank Ganesh for the Electoral College? (Score:2)
While who is leading in the polls is one indicator of who might win, our system is somewhat more complicated than that - as proven by the fact that Gore lost, despite winning the popular vote.
The Daily Kos [dailykos.com] has an interesting analysis of the Electoral College votes, and the likely battleground states and challenges the contenders will face. From that perspective, Obama has a significant if not insurmountable lead.
Re:Diebold's confession (Score:4, Informative)
I'm sick of W's policies and can't wait to get him out of office... McCain looks like more of the same... I'd love to see Obama in office... And so far it really doesn't look like McCain is going to provide much of a challenge...
I fail to see the difference in McCain's and Obama's foreign policy.
Both want to take troops out (eventually) of Iraq to put them in Afghanistan. Both support the giant permanent bases being built in Iraq, which guarentee 50k+ troops even after any "pullout," plus the probably 100k+ contractors.
Both are agressive towards Iran, leaving nothing off the table (including a nuclear first strike). Iran has proven multiple times that they don't have a weapons program and they can legally enrich uranium for legal purposes. They've only been proven to enrich uranium to around 3.7% (you need 90% for weapons grade material).
Both want to give over a billion dollars to Georgia (as does Cheney), which is going to do nothing but provoke Russia even more. Georgia was the aggressor against S. Ossetia. Saakashvili is a NATO puppet who is extremely dangerous (and loves to eat ties).
Putting a new face onto the same terrible foreign policy decisions doesn't change anything.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Both are agressive towards Iran, leaving nothing off the table (including a nuclear first strike).
I'd say that McCains camp would leave direct talks to Ahmadinejad (or whoever else happens to be the head honcho over there at that point) off the table.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
You're exactly right. Obama's the same old shit in a nice shiny package. He never would have made it to the point he is if he actually represented any sort of change. This is how our elections are fixed.
Re: (Score:2)
The key to the difference in their foreign policies is the "(eventually)": For Obama, it's very clear that "eventually" means "within 16 months of taking office", whereas with McCain it appears that "eventually" means "as long as it takes for us to get what we want" (unclear what we're trying to get at this point). Obama's goal in Iraq is to get the troops out, McCain's goal in Iraq is to stay as long as necessary. That's a significant difference.
South Ossetia (Score:2)
The situation in the Caucuses is a lot more complicated than simply writing it off to Georgian aggression. Note that South Ossetia is (was) officially part of Georgia; it was breaking away much the way the South broke away from the United States back in the 19th century. Georgia responded exactly like the US did back then, and any country does when part of it tries to secede. In that situation, though, South Ossetia was making their life particularly difficult, with military actions and direct support from
Re:Georgian conflict (Score:2)
Don't be so sure about Georgia being the aggressor. True that is how it was reported but Russia has a lot more resources to put forth their side of the story and Putin has been planning this for months (Issuing passports, hiring mercenaries, supplying weapons) Russia had their version ready for news crews while Georgia was in the midst of chaos. Russia clearly won the PR war.
At least one independent journalist in the area reported that Russians invaded with a full armor column on the 6th and the Georgian
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile Obama was working with the NATO countries to see what he could do to get more of a NATO presence in Afghanistan and less of our troops there. Sounds to me like Obama wants to get out of Iraq and reduce the number of our troops in Afghanistan - not move from one to the other as you stated. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/25/obama.trip/index.html)
And to be quite frank (my apologies to those named Frank), had we stayed out of Iraq and focused on the issue at hand in Afghanistan we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now.
I had never heard about Obama's stance towards Iran - do you have a source I can look at to see what he envisions there? The same goes for Georgia.
Georgia: ... [cbsnews.com]
Biden Calls For $1 Billion In Emergency Aid To Georgia, By Daniel
Cheney Backs Membership in NATO for Georgia - NYTimes.com [nytimes.com]
Buried in this article [bbc.co.uk] you'll find that "The current fighting began four days ago (August 6) when Georgian forces launched a surprise attack to regain control of South Ossetia, which has had de facto independence since the end of a civil war in 1992."
YouTube - Saakashvili eats a tie [youtube.com]
Iran:
Obama: Nuclear Iran 'unacceptable' [ynetnews.com]
'Iran a major threat; I would never hesitate to use our military force in order to protect homeland, US interests, Democratic presidential candidate tells FOX's 'The Oâ(TM)Reilly Factor'
Afghanistan:
Maybe we wouldn't be in this situation if w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, this talk is particularly silly considering that the latest polls have McCain ahead.
He's not ahead if you look at delagate count, but he's in easy striking distance there too.
Note that after the democratic convention bounce in '88, Dukakis (the democrat) was up by 19 points. That's far more than Obama has ever been up. After the Rep dirty trick machine had 3 months to work him over, he ended up taking only 10 states. If you think they won't spend the next 3 months doing the exact same thing this time,
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think so. Considering that the election is just eight weeks away, three months seems like overkill.
I think Obama has a solid shot at winning. Remember, it is the Republican convention that just ended, so if McCain is polling ahead right now you could chalk that up in whole or in part to post-convention bounce and initial excitement about his running mate pick (though she was announced
Re: (Score:2)
I'm an Obama supporter and I'm fairly sure McCain is going to win.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama's blowing the election. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sick of W's policies and can't wait to get him out of office... McCain looks like more of the same.
Au contraire. McCain has always been representative of those of us Republicans that cheered when he condemned the extreme right for intolerance. There's plenty of people who have noticed that McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts and argued to pay off the federal debt instead, argued against expanding medicare when we can't pay for what we already had, argued against NCLB (well intended but ultimately a disaster)... and, of course, McCain made himself even more famous by arguing that the USA needed more troops in Iraq. Most damning of all, Woodward, hardly a fan of Republican politics, has McCain quoted storming out of the white house, saying, "All I get about the war is f--- spin."
So, I would look for McCain to be someone in the mold of a Teddy Roosevelt, whom he has publicly said that he idolizes. As a president, I would probably look to see McCain do some of the progressive things that T.R. did, while still working to bolster Pax Americana. If McCain lives up to his fiscal promises and the way he's generally voted, I think there's probably enough libertarian and fiscal Republicans (as opposed to the religious right), and right of center Democrats to actually put together a governing coalition that for 4 all too brief years sheds the lunatics on both sides of the aisle.
But I keep seeing people completely dismiss the Republican ticket. I keep seeing people talk like it's a done-deal, like the Democrats are already in office
Obama is doomed in this election. It's not even that he's black that's the problem, its his politics and his pick of VP. Then, there's a character test here. Obama's never really lost and one has to wonder if he will panic when McCain pulls ahead in the polls post convention.
He's running too far to the left in the general election. Obama's plan is and always was to get all the black vote plus the liberals and the problem is that there's not enough liberals in the states he needs. He's just misread the USA at a national level, and so he has a hard time seeing the need shed his own maniacal base to succeed publicly in a way that Clinton would have surely done.
I thought he gave a fantastic speech, but, since then his moves almost smack of desperation... he's almost devolving into a sort of a classic class war candidate and that's not a good thing to do when American for the most part tend to prefer to keep open the doors of opportunity for the rich just on the offbeat chance that they get rich themselves. I would say that Sarah Palin's retort on drilling (borrowed from Paris Hilton - we Republicans have no pride), was absolutely devastating.
Obama's pick of Biden as a VP was just a disaster. Nobody likes Joe Biden, even in Delaware, but here in the 1st state our GOP is so retarded that Biden always wins. Obama let himself get talked into thinking that he needed a foreign policy wonk added to the ticket and really, that's just stupid. Most people get the sense that foreign policy is really about being fair but firm and Obama already had foreign policy sewn up after his wildly successful European trip.
Worst of all, Obama's success is his own enemy. He's got himself surrounded by so many leaches flocking to all that campaign money he's raising that he's becoming almost Carter like in his perceived obligation to take heed of all them. The left wing has this obsession that a leader needs to listen to all of his counsellers, whereas, if Obama just borrowed a small page from Bush and listened to his own gut, he'd more effective in getting what we wants. As it is, the Obama posse is just dragging him down.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Palin is a small-town extremist
Ah, Palin has managed a budget as an executive much larger than Obama ever has. She's balanced a budget, she's actually gotten more money from "big oil"... she's cut checks to everyone in Alaska out of a surplus that she created... So, when Obama manages anything that has nearly 20 billion a year in revenue, you let me know. The fact of the matter is, she has more experience than -anyone- else on the ticket as an executive. If Obama had picked a VP governor from any state
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
*Democrats* are blowing smoke?
What about Palin's repeated claims that she turned down Congress's support of the Bridge to Nowhere?
The fact is that she *campaigned on* her efforts to get federal dollars [npr.org] for the Bridge, that she continued to push for the Bridge until it was clearly never going to happen, then she *still* took $200 million in federal funds for the Bridge - she just spent it on other Alaskan transportation.
Palin is the governor of a state that has a smaller population ( 700k) than many cities,
This election is being blown... out of proportion. (Score:5, Interesting)
Au contraire. McCain has always been representative of those of us Republicans that cheered when he condemned the extreme right for intolerance. There's plenty of people who have noticed that McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts and argued to pay off the federal debt instead, argued against expanding medicare when we can't pay for what we already had, argued against NCLB (well intended but ultimately a disaster)... and, of course, McCain made himself even more famous by arguing that the USA needed more troops in Iraq. Most damning of all, Woodward, hardly a fan of Republican politics, has McCain quoted storming out of the white house, saying, "All I get about the war is f--- spin."
These are all things McCain did before running for President, and especially before getting the nomination. Since that point he has swung hard to the Republican party lines, even to the point of saying he would not vote for bills he sponsored on immigration. He's backed away from his signature issue of finance reform, and despite being anti-war in the past, no one accuses him of that now.
The fact of the matter is that regardless of what McCain championed before, he's a different man now, with different positions. If you're voting for the McCain of 2000, or even 2004, you're voting for someone who doesn't exist.
Obama is doomed in this election. It's not even that he's black that's the problem, its his politics and his pick of VP. Then, there's a character test here. Obama's never really lost and one has to wonder if he will panic when McCain pulls ahead in the polls post convention.
Let's talk about VP picks first. Until Palin was picked we heard nothing from McCain or the right other than Obama was inexperienced. Palin is as inexperienced as national level politicians get. A governor of two years does not a VP make - and that's about her only credential. Biden may not be your favorite person, but he has a great deal of experience backing him. Further, he has a lot of blue collar people on his side - and has fought for that class well for a long time. He's not the terrible pick the right is making him out to be - to the contrary one has to wonder if they keep calling him a bad pick because he's a good one? This idea that no one likes him is demonstrably false - he's being elected time and again, so it can't be that no one likes him - just no one you like.
But this notion of a character test... where is that from? What makes you think that Obama is going to suddenly implode because of poll results? What, for that matter, makes you think his moves are desperate? Which moves, particularly? And why is it that being a 'classic class war candidate' so bad? Especially in an era when our middle and lower classes have been at the spear's point of the sacrifices our country has demanded?
He's got himself surrounded by so many leaches flocking to all that campaign money he's raising that he's becoming almost Carter like in his perceived obligation to take heed of all them.
Where are you getting this from? Is there any actual evidence he's being pulled in too many directions? Or is that just the spin right now on why Obama will never work? And where is this idea that he's swung to the left come from? Most on the left would actually say that Obama has swung towards the center (backing off on eliminating our commitment in Iraq, backing off the telecom amnesty) far more than he has taken up hard leftist issues (like... what? Nothing.)
What I hear consistently from the right is that Obama is 'maniacal', 'messianic', 'too leftist', 'egotistical', 'desperate'. Where these claims can be supported or refuted by evidence, they're refuted. His supporters on the left don't think he's left enough - only the right is trying to claim that he's left (presumably to sway the centrists to picking a right candidate). They talk about leeches on his campaign, but never about the fact that of McCain's top ten advisers, se
Re: (Score:2)
Surely they believe themselves unstoppable now.
They don't. In large part because this is an issue that the geeks are winning on a political level, as demonstrated by all the states who now require voter-verifiable paper trails, the secretaries of state who have getting replaced, and some case law as well. As far as I can tell, they realize they are in trouble.
And don't call me Shirley.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They got away with it in 2000 and 2004. Surely they believe themselves unstoppable now.
Then why wasn't the 2006 senate election rigged, oh because your side won.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Then why wasn't the 2006 senate election rigged, oh because your side won.
I don't have a "side" in the sense that you are thinking. I'm small 'l' libertarian and a confirmed swing voter.
And Congressional elections aren't like Presidential elections. With a presidential election, you have ONE election, and it's very national. Congressional races are lots of local elections. And, until 2006, it was previously believed by both the right and the left that national issues don't decide Congressional races, only local issues do. Guess they were wrong. (No surprise, because the rig
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Back in the late 70's and early 80's I used to play soccer on a team that was mostly black. In Oklahoma. All our opponents were all white, as were all the referees. I happen to know a little bit about playing the game when supposedly impartial "officials" are putting their thumbs on the scales.
Your only defense against this is to be that much better than your competition. You can't allow it to be close, because then its a crapshoot who wins, and you a
We DID rig this election. (Score:3, Funny)
We Republicans did rig this election. You guys always look trying to think we're screwing up votes in Ohio but our strategy has always been to vote for the most radical Democratic candidate in all too many open primaries. Because Democrats have proportional representation, this strategy ALWAYS works.
We registered Democrat in many states and voted for Obama in droves. Then, when it looked like it was over for Hillary, we supported her just enough to drag the race out and bleed Democrats dry. But at the e
Re: (Score:2)
We Republicans did rig this election. You guys always look trying to think we're screwing up votes in Ohio but our strategy has always been to vote for the most radical Democratic candidate in all too many open primaries. Because Democrats have proportional representation, this strategy ALWAYS works.
I think you're giving yourself and the Republican party a bit too much credit. If you always voted for the most radical candidate, then how did the Democrats wind up with John Kerry in 2004?
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're giving yourself and the Republican party a bit too much credit.
In an election year? No way!!! :-)
If you always voted for the most radical candidate, then how did the Democrats wind up with John Kerry in 2004?
He's a lot more to the left than Howard Dean was... but, then again, you are right...nobody needed to help Dean implode with his ultimate warrior speech.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Mr. W0lf, would you come in here? We need to have a little talk."
Yeah... all of us workers noticed that all of you executives voted for Tom Johnson. So, we're walking off the job.
WHAT!?!
Don't get the wrong idea... this isn't a strike. We quit. We hear some people up north have started this structure kind of like a co-operative, and they're doing well, so, we're a
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think it's a problem to have everyone's vote be public record?
---------
"What seems to be the problem officer?"
"Well, I noticed that your tail light is out, and one of your tires is a little low. Just wanted to let you know, but as part of a routine stop, I need to run your license and registration."
"Thanks officer, here you go."
<officer goes to car then returns>
"Well citizen, it seems you voted for the guy who supported cutting back on police officer benefits. I'm afraid I'm going to have
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just... wow... the first sentence of your response sums up my counter-response pretty well.
Forced labor, anarchy, elimination of currency. These are your justifications for public ballots. And that's just to address the two example scenarios I raised. I (and certainly the mafioso's I was using for an example) used money as a placeholder for the attribution of power. Even if you eliminated money, individuals will still strive for power, and they will still use force to acquire it.
Look, if you believe in
Re: (Score:2)
Can anyone tell me why the burden of proof is so, so, so much lower on political topics than any other type of intellectual discourse? Sorry, "intellectual discourse"? Could we, perhaps, start again, and stop stringing up our most hated politicians if we catch a whiff of a mistake, or the tiniest opportunity for corruption? I don't mean reasonable evidence, I mean total heresay. And to think people wonder why politicians are so secretive. Oh wait, no they don't, they just assume it's because they're power-h
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Look at those Republican assholes, our superhero is guaranteed to win, no matter what!"
Polls suggest a close race. Past decade voting trends suggest a close race. Your optimism just isn't aligned with reality.
Re:Diebold's confession (Score:4, Insightful)
"Look at those Republican assholes, our superhero is guaranteed to win, no matter what!"
Polls suggest a close race. Past decade voting trends suggest a close race. Your optimism just isn't aligned with reality.
Exactly.
I think Bush is an idiot and McCain is more of the same... I can't understand why anyone would vote for him... But that doesn't somehow make me right. There are plenty of people out there who disagree with me. And judging from the polls this is going to be a very close race.
Unless, of course, the Democrats sit back all smug-like and assume their victory is assured...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Meh. I expect 0.05% of voters are going to vote my way.
I'm staying home. Whoever wins, I lose.
Re: (Score:2)
Bah. I fixed this for you just because I wanted to read it & your wall of text was indecipherable. The Preview button exists for a reason! Here goes:
I can't understand why anyone would vote for him.
Let me supply an answer just so you understand the opposition. I will probably be modded down for this, but here goes...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Be careful when you try to speak for everyone; some of us other veterans know that merely putting on a lapel pin doesn't necessarily signify any genuine commitment. I suspect this this is primarily a generational difference.
I will not vote for Obama, but I don't doubt his patriotism just because of some piece of jewelry.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
GOP rigging can't happen in the People's Republic of Maryland due to the fact that the GOP is outnumbered something like 2 to 1. In the 2004 election, when I was registered as a Republican, I was directed to a particular voting machine. No body before me had used that one and as far as I could tell no one after me did. It seemed peculiar. The paranoid part of me says that the votes on that machine were not counted.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"Fortunately, Obama's success this November will be too sweeping for even the usual election-stealing shenanigans to saddle us with four more years of war, corruption, lies, and deepening economy woes."
Good Grief! I have been chuckling when Republicans portray Obama as a messianic figure and Democrats as his devout followers, but you really see it that way. He's "Jesus Christ Superstar" for the new millennium.
Let me clue you in:
- His touch doesn't cure leprosy
- Flowers do not spring up in his footprints
-
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
we dont need your kind here, destroying our freedom.
Apparently someone already pried your shift key from your cold dead fingers.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
the voting machines work fine. do you really think a major corporation like diebold is going to make a mistake on something as important as voting?
Yes. If Ford Motor Co. can make a mistake on something as important as keeping gas tanks from exploding on impact (see Ford Pinto) and Firestone can make a mistake on something as important as preventing the tread from separating the rest of the tire (see Ford Explorer) and Mattel can make a mistake on testing their imports from China for lead paint, all of which cause people to DIE, then yes, Diebold can make a mistake on something as important as voting, which is not actually directly responsible for an
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
something as important as voting, which is not actually directly responsible for any deaths.
Says you.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, that assumes the almost uniformly Republican-favoring "errors" found in the 2000 and 2004 elections are actually "mistakes" on Diebold's part. I outgrew most conspiracy theories years ago, and yet I find that part of my brain giving off all kinds of warning signals as we approach this most important election...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"I outgrew most conspiracy theories years ago, and yet I find that part of my brain giving off all kinds of warning signals as we approach this most important election..."
I outgrew breastfeeding years ago, and yet I find my brain giving all sorts of signals when I see a nice rack. That doesn't mean the woman attached to them is my Mom.
MOD parent funny! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree , your mom has a nice rack!
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea what the Ford Motor company has to do with the reliability of Diebold voting machines, as the comparison is irrelevant anyway.
What you can do is to discuss what exactly Diebold does for its banking customers and noting error rates for ATM transactions.... they are far worse than a "zero incident" rate. This is even the same company that makes these voting machines, and IMHO an incredibly valid criticism.
The point being is that electronic voting standards IMHO ought to be much stronger and mo
Re: (Score:2)
the voting machines work fine.
I know you are just trolling, but in case anyone worth talking to was reading, I invite you to watch Hacking Democracy [hackingdemocracy.com]. It was on HBO a couple years ago. It exposed serious flaws in the Diebold voting machines, and they even had a computer expert trivially fix a demo election (I believe he never saw a voting machine before and within a couple hours was able to do this) without even having direct access to the voting machines. Diebold was so unhappy about it they tried to get HBO not to show it. Here it is
Re: (Score:2)
As much as conspiracy theorists are wrong 99.99% of the time, they do serve the important purpose of making sure that conspiracies are not worth executing. Black Box, whether you consider them conspiracy theorists or not, help keep the bastards honest. And let's face it. We're all a bit of a bastard given the opportunity.