Over the past three weeks I've been hoping Bush won the election fair and square and the majority of the electorate was bamboozled, not cheated.  If the gears of democracy are working smoothly and without thuggish meddling from the power elite, we stand a chance of taking back America by convincing a slim margin of voters to vote their best interests.

If a cabal of corrupt corporations and crooked politicians are conspiring to skew electoral outcomes in their favor, our problems are a ghastly sight more severe.

It is my displeasure to report the latter case may be true.  A body of damning evidence is coming to light that the Republicans have imposed their will on the American people by throwing a spanner in the works of the election machine.

Alan Waldman of the Orlando Weekly has compiled the current evidence into a concise article, which was published by our local weekly The Valley Advocate, and other periodicals.  Below the article is published in full at SmirkingChimp.com.  I find the arguments cogent, and I will keep my eye on the developments that follow.

Do not expect the mainstream media to cover this story with anything but ridicule, if they cover it all.  I am sure our conservative members will have some irritated reactions.  They're welcome to them.  I'm more interested in disseminating the information. 

I encourage everyone to read the article: Alan Waldman: 'The Florida vote: Was it hacked?'

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=18758&mode=nested

Over the past three weeks I've been hoping Bush won the election fair and square and the majority of the electorate was bamboozled, not cheated.  If the gears of democracy are working smoothly and without thuggish meddling from the power elite, we stand a chance of taking back America by convincing a slim margin of voters to vote their best interests.

If a cabal of corrupt corporations and crooked politicians are conspiring to skew electoral outcomes in their favor, our problems are a ghastly sight more severe.

It is my displeasure to report the latter case may be true.  A body of damning evidence is coming to light that the Republicans have imposed their will on the American people by throwing a spanner in the works of the election machine.

Alan Waldman of the Orlando Weekly has compiled the current evidence into a concise article, which was published by our local weekly The Valley Advocate, and other periodicals.  Below the article is published in full at SmirkingChimp.com.  I find the arguments cogent, and I will keep my eye on the developments that follow.

Do not expect the mainstream media to cover this story with anything but ridicule, if they cover it all.  I am sure our conservative members will have some irritated reactions.  They're welcome to them.  I'm more interested in disseminating the information. 

I encourage everyone to read the article: Alan Waldman: 'The Florida vote: Was it hacked?'

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=18758&mode=nested


You're crazy.  If the media even had the slightest hint of a stolen or rigged election, they would be all in arms like they were during Rodney King.  According to some poll I heard on Fox News a week or so ago 82% of the American public thinks this election was fair, while only single digits think it was stolen (all are posters at the DU.)  You'll never get anyone but the kook left to even give this guy the slightest bit of credit.

Though, the whack jobs at the democratic underground may like this BS though...

So, they stole the election again


Again?  What are you saying? 

Oh, the election in 1996 and 1992 was so fair.  But every time we lose now, it is because it was stolen.  The biggest group of whiners in America, no in the world.  The left whines more than a new-born baby.

You're crazy.  If the media even had the slightest hint of a stolen or rigged election, they would be all in arms like they were during Rodney King.  According to some poll I heard on Fox News a week or so ago 82% of the American public thinks this election was fair, while only single digits think it was stolen (all are posters at the DU.)  You'll never get anyone but the kook left to even give this guy the slightest bit of credit.

Though, the whack jobs at the democratic underground may like this BS though...

The democratic underground?
;D
Not to worry, refutations from your side will be forthcoming.  I mean, I don't see them now, but as the steam picks up, they'll have to say something. 

All this brings me back to the Nixon years.  "Don't blame me, I'm from Massachusetts" now it's
"Don't Blame Me, I'm From Blue America"(I have a paper trail to prove it). ;)

None of this is any surprise.  Those machines that began the day, before a vote was cast, with 500 or more votes for Bush, and the ones where over 100% of registered voters voted, and those that deducted votes as more were cast are probably just the tip of the iceberg.  And GWB's reaction is typical.  So 82% of the public has been duped.  That only means that the theft was a success.  And we are suppose to be the shining example of democracy around the world.  Sounds more lilke the Ukraine to me.  Or as Edward G. Robinson's character in Key Largo put it, we count the votes over and over, till they come out right.

Here is the take on the election by my favorite investigative journalist, Greg Palast.


http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=393&row=0

Whose chads are left hanging? In Florida in 2000 federal investigators determined that Black voters' ballots spoiled 900% more often than white voters, mainly due to punch card error. Ohio Republicans found those racial odds quite attractive. The state was the only one of fifty to refuse to eliminate or fix these vote-eating machines, even in the face of a lawsuit by the ACLU.

The sad part about this is that nothing will be done about it-just like in 2000. So what if the election was fixed? Who cares? Right? You can bet your @$$ that those people in Washington who is SUPPOSED to care won't-that is how many got there. This country is becoming more and more corrupt and many people seem to applaud that fact-which is a travesty.




Cat

The sad part about this is that nothing will be done about it-just like in 2000. So what if the election was fixed? Who cares? Right? You can bet your @$$ that those people in Washington who is SUPPOSED to care won't-that is how many got there. This country is becoming more and more corrupt and many people seem to applaud that fact-which is a travesty.




Cat


Sorry to break it to you, but just because old Greg wrote an article doesn't mean he is correct.  And if he voted for Kerry, no one will believe him.

Sorry to break it to you, but just because old Greg wrote an article doesn't mean he is correct.  And if he voted for Kerry, no one will believe him.


    He might be wrong but the sad thing (for the state of American democracy) is that he might be right.  And what do you mean about the second sentence? That just because he might have a political agenda he must be lying in any statements he makes about Republicans. By that logic everything Ann, Bill, Sean, Rush, and all of those people say about Democrats is certainly false and i know you don't believe that.

Conspiracy theory is a prerequisite to conspiracy fact.  Let's have no fear of the term.  The mainstream media has orders from the corporate paymasters to treat this story with scorn if they treat it at all.  As Waldman's story reports
Although the Internet is full of stories of election fraud, and major media in England, Canada and elsewhere have investigated the story, you'll find almost nothing in the major U.S. media. "I have been told by sources that are fairly high up in the media – particularly TV – that there is now a lockdown on this story," says Harris.* "It's officially 'Let's move on' time." On Nov. 6, Project Censored Award-winning author Thom Hartmann said, "So far, the only national 'mainstream' media outlet to come close to this story was Keith Olbermann, when he noted that it was curious that all the voting machine irregularities so far uncovered seemed to favor Bush. In the meantime, the Washington Post and other media are now going through single-bullet-theory-like contortions to explain how the exit polls had failed."
italics mine
*Bev Harris of Black Box Voting
I'm still waiting for the flurry of refutations telling Waldman, Palast, and others they're all wet.  Or am I just going to hear a cornucopia of epithets such as "far-left kook whiny sore loser Democrats"?

I imagine that if there were even a smidgeon of credibility to these charges, the Democratic Party leadership and their thousands of volunteer lawyers would be all over this issue like buzzards on a gut wagon, and rightfully so.  ::)

Adding to this story, I read another where, in the case of the "BLUE" states, prople were voting Chicago-style and voting under the name of dead relatives, etc... in hopes of recreating Kennedy's rigged win in 1960.  ;D

When you lose the election, cry "conspiracy", and get Michael Moore programmed in on your speedy-dial.  :D

I've been following the various investigations since the election - since the first articles that drew attention to the way the accuracy of the exit polls varied with the voting hardware: where there was a paper trail, exit polls were by-and-large correct; where some incompetent idiot (or conniving bastard, one of the two) had specified voting machines that keep no audit trail, the exit polls were out by as much as 15%.

The problem I have is this: there is no way of proving that the election *wasn't* rigged - too many of the votes were cast on boxes that left no way of verifying what happened.  I thought that Bush calling the Ukraine's election "flawed" was hypocritical to say the least.

But I don't expect anything to come of it - after all, last time round Florida had a proven example of the worst case of electoral fraud in any election I can remember in a Western nation, and what happened even after it was proved in court?

But I don't expect anything to come of it - after all, last time round Florida had a proven example of the worst case of electoral fraud in any election I can remember in a Western nation, and what happened even after it was proved in court?


What, exactly, was proved in court?  ???

As I recall, even after the Supreme Court decision (right or wrong) was made, recounts were done anyway in Florida, and Bush still held an albeit small margin of victory.

As for an audit trail on the voting machines, I too would like to see a mandate that the voting machines produce a hard-copy printout for each vote, at the time of voting. so that a manual recount could be done (I do not trust the accuracy of computers because their proogamming can be flawed.  But if somebody wants to "rig" the election, then they can have the hard-copy audit page also show the "rigged" result.  That is how I would do it if I were rigging things.

That is why we have election supervisors at the polls, who represent both parties.

In Florida/2000, the election supervisor process worked to the extent that serious allegations were made and addressed.  In the 2004 elections, I have heard no serious challenges by EITHER party of irregularities.  Do you think that the TENS OF THOUSANDS of election supervisors in THOUSANDS of counties all were fooled in a 2004 conspiracy?  Doubtful.  Nobody can keep a secret that expansive.

And... at the end of the day... regardless of which party is in office... we unfortunately will have voters who are so inept that they can not correctly use paper ballots, touch screens, punch-cards, or even open outcry voting.  Rather than admit their ineptness, they cry discrimination.  My guess is that no one racial or ethic group has a monopoly on inept voters who lack the cognitive skills to vote correctly.

What, exactly, was proved in court? ???

That sixty-something thousand electors were illegally kept off the voting register.  That bit did have its day in court, and was proven.  Whatever else happened, happened.  You might consider that sharing the same name as a convicted felon is enough to stop someone from voting, but IMO it was an overt attempt at vote-rigging and one that probably did affect the outcome in 2000, given that Florida was so close.


As for an audit trail on the voting machines, I too would like to see a mandate that the voting machines produce a hard-copy printout for each vote, at the time of voting. so that a manual recount could be done (I do not trust the accuracy of computers because their proogamming can be flawed. But if somebody wants to "rig" the election, then they can have the hard-copy audit page also show the "rigged" result. That is how I would do it if I were rigging things.

Given that (as you've pointed out) conspiracies which need hundreds or thousands of conspirators to succeed are very unlikely to go unspotted, anything which produces a paper trail in 000s of different ballot boxes would be very hard to rig, and virtually impossible to rig unnoticed (which seems to be pretty much what happened in the Ukraine - the large-scale tampering was spotted by, hell, almost everyone); it's very easy to tamper with voting records kept in one location on an Access database where even the event/audit log can be modified by opening the database in native-mode Access.  And because of the complete lack of paper trail, there is no way of proving that it's honest or otherwise.

And that's ignoring the bugs and glitches that some people seem to think are acceptable, one of which has added more than 90k votes in Ohio alone - admittedly, it looks like these were a filtering error (precinct provisional votes were counted by precinct without explicitly saying "*THIS* precinct from *THIS* county", so they were counted multiple times), and who knows whether cumulatively these would affect the result.  Voting software should be the simplest of all to get right, FFS - all it has to do is count.

But what makes it *look* dishonest is the way that the polling hardware statistically has affected the way votes were counted this time around - I'm kind of hoping that, rather like the Ohio overcounting "bug", someone finds the glitches that caused some Diebold counties to count more Republican votes than there were electors in the county: 'cause if they don't, the reasonable deduction is that those numbers were changed intentionally.

What can I say?  The only people who would believe this garbage are idiots who want to believe.  But looks like The Miami Herald, which is stationed in Florida did a report on charges of fraud....lets see what they have to say as reported by The Seattle Times:

Florida newspaper finds no evidence of election fraud

By Meg Laughlin and David Kidwell
Knight Ridder Newspapers

LAKE BUTLER, Fla. — Since President Bush captured Florida and the White House again, critics have fixed their sights on northern pockets of the Sunshine State and asked: How did the Republicans win so heavily in counties stocked with Democrats?

Some wondered whether Florida's tally was corrupt, with one Internet site writing: "George W. Bush's vote tallies, especially in the key state of Florida, are so statistically stunning that they border on the unbelievable."

The Miami Herald last week went to see for itself whether Bush's steamroll through north Florida was legitimate. Picking three counties that fit the conspiracy-theory profile — staunchly Democratic by registration, whoppingly GOP by voting — two reporters counted more than 17,000 ballots over three days.

The conclusion: no conspiracy.

The count of optical-scan ballots in Suwannee, Lafayette and Union counties showed Bush whipping John Kerry in a region where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans 3-1.

The Herald found minor differences with official results, most involving ballots that had been discarded as unreadable by optical-scan machines but in which reporters thought the voter's intent was clear.

Under the optical-scan system, voters fill in an oval or darken an arrow by a candidate's name. A machine reads the card optically.

Kerry solidly won the battle in South Florida, but Bush won the war by dominating everywhere else in the state, particularly in the 52 counties that use optical-scan ballots, which can be checked for accuracy.

Republicans often had done fairly well in those counties, but this year more so.

Democrats outnumber Republicans by about 340,000 voters in the 52 counties, but Bush took them by about 340,000 votes — a 680,000-vote swing that assured him of victory.   

The Herald focused on three counties that represented some of the more severe disparities between registrations and votes, beginning Monday in Union County, where more than 75 percent of registered voters are Democrats.

"People here traditionally register as Democrats to vote in local primaries, but they're very conservative," Union County Judge Dave Reimer said. "When I came here in 1983, there were only 54 registered Republicans in the whole county."

Election Supervisor Babs Montpetit was more direct. "People here are mostly fundamentalist Christians who work in the prisons," she said. "Do you think they're going to vote for the liberal senator from Massachusetts?"

The Herald total: 3,393 votes for Bush, 1,272 for Kerry. Fifteen votes couldn't be counted clearly.

The county's official total: 3,392 for Bush, 1,251 for Kerry and a few dozen that couldn't be counted.

The next stop was west a bit, in neighboring Suwannee County. Election Supervisor Glenda Williams greeted reporters at the election office in Live Oak: "Most people in this county are against abortion and gay marriage. So, they voted for Bush."

The Herald counted almost 60 percent of the votes in Suwannee, where nearly 64 percent of voters are registered Democrats.

The newspaper's total: 6,140 votes for Bush and 2,984 for Kerry, which nearly matched the county's official tally.

Next stop: Mayo in Lafayette County, where 83 percent of voters are registered Democrats. Along the way were neighborhoods called "The Christian Village" and a warehouse called "The Christian Outlet." One billboard said: "There is life before birth."

Four years ago, the Florida vote was so tight, and so flawed, that the Herald counted every questionable ballot. The results weren't as close this time, but questions remained. Reporters told Lafayette County Election Supervisor Lana Morgan the newspaper had come back to end the speculation.

"Good," she said. "You don't know how frustrating it is to convince people who are set on believing something — even if it's not true."

The reporters' total: 2,452 votes for Bush and 848 for Kerry, with 20 that couldn't be counted clearly. The official county total: 2,460 for Bush, 845 for Kerry and others that couldn't be counted.

Morgan invited the reporters for an early Thanksgiving dinner in her office, but they had to return home, driving to the Jacksonville airport past Snoball stands, chicken farms and anti-abortion billboards.

Link to the above article: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002102809_florida28.html

Cover up in Volusia County
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1118-22.htm

Cover up in Volusia County
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1118-22.htm




That is pure crap, okay?  No one except a bunch of hardcore leftists like at the DU and movedown.ork are complaining, you lost.  Get it?  LOST.  ABC, CNN, FNC, The Miami Hearald, and no telling what else have found nothing.  ABC and CNN would jump all over the slightest evidence of fruad, but nothing.  If this BS had any credibility it would be all of the news media.  I give up, Bush stole 2000, he stole 2004, if a republican wins in 2008 it was stolen, only Clinton won fair and square.....blahblahblahblahloserblahblahblahblah.  How many news organizations and newspapers do you need?  NBC, CBS, and USA Today....are you holding out for them.  Dam*.  I give up on this.

Maxwell, you lost.  It's over.  Kerry can come home now.

Hmmmm....perhaps those vote counts the Miami Herald reported were themselves fraudulent:
http://www.passinglane.com/elections/
:D

But listen, GWB, if you are certain of the authenticity of the 2004 outcome, why get irritated about what some whacko leftie conspiracy theorists are saying?
Or does it tweak your conscience to consider there might be malfeasance lurking beneath yet another Bush victory?
I have a suggestion, sir, you will never agree with anything I report in this thread, so don't read the thread if you don't like what you read.  I started this thread because there are too many suspicious dealings and unanswered questions regarding the election.  For the sake of a healthy democracy, we can't afford to let these questions go unexamined. 
I was not being sarcastic when I said I hoped Bush won fair and square.  It took me three weeks to entertain the possibility the election was *stolen* again.
An article such as the one from the Seattle Times may refute one part of the complex myriad of suspicious evidence, but leaves dozens of others unanswered.  This is not about my personal feelings, GWB, please don't make it about yours.


That is pure crap, okay?  No one except a bunch of hardcore leftists like at the DU and movedown.ork are complaining, you lost.  Get it?  LOST.  ABC, CNN, FNC, The Miami Hearald, and no telling what else have found nothing.  ABC and CNN would jump all over the slightest evidence of fruad, but nothing.  If this BS had any credibility it would be all of the news media.  I give up, Bush stole 2000, he stole 2004, if a republican wins in 2008 it was stolen, only Clinton won fair and square.....blahblahblahblahloserblahblahblahblah.  How many news organizations and newspapers do you need?  NBC, CBS, and USA Today....are you holding out for them.  Dam*.  I give up on this.

Maxwell, you lost.  It's over.  Kerry can come home now.

What can I say?  The only people who would believe this garbage are idiots who want to believe.  But looks like The Miami Herald, which is stationed in Florida did a report on charges of fraud....lets see what they have to say as reported by The Seattle Times:

Florida newspaper finds no evidence of election fraud

So they recounted in three counties where recounts were possible: the whole point of my post was that how well Bush did correlates with whether recounts were possible or not - please look carefully at the following two graphs:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/images/homepage/20041106_truth.gif

http://www.democraticunderground.com/images/homepage/20041106_fiction.gif

To summarize: the deviation from the exit poll was a maximum of 3% in the states where paper ballots were used, and the modal deviation is 0 - nearly half of those exit polls were spot on; where no paper trail is available, the exit polls were on average more than 5% out, and all favouring Kerry (or to look at the other way, the actual vote figures show a swing towards Bush of >5%)

You have one of three options:
1. Ignore this, and say it doesn't matter - all that'll prove is that you didn't look at it, or simply don't care whether there was election fraud or not 'cause your guy won.
2. Explain how the data is faulty (so far nobody has done that, yet - it seems fairly robust to me: the source data is quoted on the website and is derived from the officially published figures)
3. Explain how the deviation between exit polls and actual poll results can be so different when there is no paper trail compared to when a paper trail is available to do the sort of recount you've just quoted.

Please take the time to think about it rather than ranting about liberal conspiracy theories: I'm not proposing any cause at the present, I'm simply trying to draw your attention to a statistical anomaly.

So they recounted in three counties where recounts were possible: the whole point of my post was that how well Bush did correlates with whether recounts were possible or not - please look carefully at the following two graphs:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/images/homepage/20041106_truth.gif

http://www.democraticunderground.com/images/homepage/20041106_fiction.gif

To summarize: the deviation from the exit poll was a maximum of 3% in the states where paper ballots were used, and the modal deviation is 0 - nearly half of those exit polls were spot on; where no paper trail is available, the exit polls were on average more than 5% out, and all favouring Kerry (or to look at the other way, the actual vote figures show a swing towards Bush of >5%)

You have one of three options:
1. Ignore this, and say it doesn't matter - all that'll prove is that you didn't look at it, or simply don't care whether there was election fraud or not 'cause your guy won.
2. Explain how the data is faulty (so far nobody has done that, yet - it seems fairly robust to me: the source data is quoted on the website and is derived from the officially published figures)
3. Explain how the deviation between exit polls and actual poll results can be so different when there is no paper trail compared to when a paper trail is available to do the sort of recount you've just quoted.

Please take the time to think about it rather than ranting about liberal conspiracy theories: I'm not proposing any cause at the present, I'm simply trying to draw your attention to a statistical anomaly.


So what are you saying?  The exit polls were right, and the vote tally was wrong?  The same exit polls from 2000?

The same exit polls that said:

1. Kerry was going to win Pennsylvania by 20 points
2. Bush and Kerry were tied in MISSISSIPPI
3. Bush was only ahead by 3 points in SOUTH CAROLINA

Your graph doesn't show all the exit polls, only a select few, kind of like the newspaper's recount, fair is fair, right?

--PS, why is Colorado on there?  Is that suppose to help your cause on the ''no paper ballots'' one?  Its almost exact.  And Maine's exit poll was far off on that graph under the ''paper ballots'' section.

You lost.  Take some advice from one of your favorite newspapers, the Guardian, and accept it: "We may not like it. In fact … we don't like it one bit. But if it isn't a mandate, then the word has no meaning. Mr. Bush has won fair … and square. He and his country—and the rest of the world—now have to deal with it." -The Guardian

So what are you saying?  The exit polls were right, and the vote tally was wrong?  The same exit polls from 2000?

That's one interpretation: what I'm trying to figure out is how (other than software errors which just happened to go heavily one way or fraud) there is a huge difference between those polls conducted with and without the possibility of audit.


Your graph doesn't show all the exit polls, only a select few, kind of like the newspaper's recount, fair is fair, right?

--PS, why is Colorado on there?  Is that suppose to help your cause on the ''no paper ballots'' one?  Its almost exact.  And Maine's exit poll was far off on that graph under the ''paper ballots'' section.

I didn't choose the dataset, so I can't say exactly why the different states are there, but I guess it's to do with the weighting between paper and non-paper ballots - that Colerado is on there with a 1% deviation from exit poll doesn't help or hinder "my cause" (as you choose to call it) - in some cases the exit polls were fine, so great; and Maine is 3% off, far and away the biggest deviation in the paper ballot section, so it would be reasonable to argue that that is probable limit of exit poll variance.

This still doesn't come close to explaining why there is a statistically-significant correlation between the (exit poll - actual vote) margin and the type of equipment used for voting.  Surely you can see that if all types of voting measured votes accurately, the same patterns would be shown irrespective of voting machinery: it is that influence of what type of voting box was used which makes the whole thing look so suspicious.

Now, it may be that statistical analysis is wholly beyond you - after all, this is slightly more than basic numeracy - but just because you don't understand why this is significant, please don't try telling me that it ain't.

Now I don't know what the Ohio exit polls said, but like with Mississippi, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, and some various other states; the exit polls proved to be wrong.  Some of the exit polls gave a 16 point lead to Kerry in Florida.  If you really want to believe Kerry was anywhere near that, then go right ahead.  But no polls, liberal (democracy corps), independent (Zogby, Gallup, Fox Opinions dynamics), or conservative (Harris) came even close to backing it up.  Nor did the vote tally, paper or non-paper, in the state.  To say that the vote tally must have been manipulated over the exit polls is beyond absurd.  I already explained why the exit polls were wrong (time of day, willingness of people to take a survey,) so the exit poll theory, in my opinion, is probably the dumbest of the movedown.ork and DU hypotheses.

It is also funny to read how some of you think all the election fraud (if there was any) was the republicans.  The left couldn't have cheated.  From the same people who said that they honestly believed that if all the 155,000 provisional ballots were counted in Ohio, they could somehow pass Bush's 136,000 vote lead.  All fraud is on the right, it must be those Diebold machines, it must be some extra votes or gliches that added votes for the right.  Get me a tinfoil hat.  Sheesh.

Now I don't know what the Ohio exit polls said, but like with Mississippi, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, and some various other states; the exit polls proved to be wrong.

So no idea then why the exit polls were more wrong when there was no way of verifying their results than they were when there was a paper trail?  That's the point I'm trying to get to here: if all the voting machines counted votes accurately, there should be no correlation between voting machine and result - but there indisputably is such a correlation.  Until that's been properly investigated, and the reason for it found and explained, you can't say with any certainty who won: the numbers involved are considerably more than the winning margin, even though it was a large winning margin.  In a similar vein, I can't say that it means the result was wrong - because neither viewpoint is provable.


It is also funny to read how some of you think all the election fraud (if there was any widespread) was the republicans. The left couldn't have cheated. From the same people who said that they honestly believed that if all the 155,000 provisional ballots were counted in Ohio, they could somehow pass Bush's 136,000 vote lead. All fraud is on the right, it must be those Diebold machines, it must be some extra votes or gliches that added votes for the right. Get me a tinfoil hat. Sheesh.

You are being totally blind to what I'm actually saying, aren't you - there are massive statistical anomalies which combined outweigh far more than a little 136,000 votes in one state.  And they are overwhelmingly republican, so please stop this "the left cheated as well" sheesh, if you have any evidence, post it.  But, of course, that's the same as your pre-election tactic: whenever the Republicans were caught lying, you'd say "the Democrats are lying, too"... and probably believed it.  Sigh.

My main gripe is not who should have won or even did win, but whether the electoral process itself actually worked - but since tens of millions of votes were collated on machines that allow no checking of the numbers those machines returned, there is no proof either way.  Your electoral system could be completely rigged, but you just don't care 'cause your guy won.

Another question for you: what would it take to shake your solid conviction that this election was fair and honest?

Another question for you: what would it take to shake your solid conviction that this election was fair and honest?



Some proof would be nice.  It is not my job, nor the republicans to prove this election wasn't rigged.  The few democrats who are making this claim are the ones who have the burden of proof put on them.  And quite honestly, the democrats are failing miserably, grasping at straws even.  Now it is hard to say this with 100% honesty since it didn't happen, but if this was reversed, I don't think I would by into the same hypotheses that some of the nutjobs at the DU and others on the far-left seem to be buying into.

And quite honestly, the democrats are failing miserably, grasping at straws even.

As far as I can see, the Democrats aren't contesting anything, the media aren't reporting anything... everything must be hunky-dory.  But...

As far as "proof" goes, I'd say the overwhelming statistical evidence is that the voting hardware affected the result - how else can those graphs be read?  Whether it's fraud or otherwise will probably never be known because some incompetent a**hole accepted voting kit which means that there never will be proof.  The closest thing there might be is for a bunch of suspect precincts to re-run the election (or to visit everyone on the electoral roll and ask them how they voted) - hoping that enough people are honest in their answers... but if that happens, I'll be very, very surprised.

Speaking as a somewhat biased outsider, if Kerry had won under the same conditions, with the same anomalies in the voting record showing up - I can guarantee I'd be saying the same thing.  This ain't just about not liking the fact that Bush won, it's about trying to ensure that your democracy isn't a sham (not to mention trying to make sure that the same thing doesn't happen over here)

My main gripe is not who should have won or even did win, but whether the electoral process itself actually worked - but since tens of millions of votes were collated on machines that allow no checking of the numbers those machines returned, there is no proof either way.  Your electoral system could be completely rigged, but you just don't care 'cause your guy won.


Bingo! That's what we need to consider.  If partisan interests are conspiring to rig elections, we must find them and stop them.  If there's evidence the Democrats were in bed with voting machine companies, vote-counting companies, and secretaries of states--like the Republicans--we ought to look into that too!

Thanks for your posts, Philbo, you are one smart fellow!

Thanks for your posts, Philbo, you are one smart fellow!

Aw... shucks

But it *is* something I get kind of worked up about: the thing about this sort of statistical "evidence" of something odd happening is that Joe Public doesn't understand how improbable it is - my initial guesstimate of the likelihood of this happening by chance (I made a few assumptions 'cause of laziness, but the basics should be right - I can show workings if anyone's interested) is in the tens-of-millions-to-one against - basically, there's a bigger chance of winning the lottery or being struck by lightning (but a lower chance than winning the lottery and being struck by lightning) than the deviations by voting machine type seen coming about by chance.

In other words it is overwhelmingly likely that the variations by voting machine type is a causal relationship, i.e. something in the technology used caused a different voting pattern.  Still not proof of fraud, but I'd love to know what else it could be.

Thanks Philbo for posting those stats. I agree that this SHOULD be looked into-but it won't which is very disturbing to democracy. However, I wouldn't even TRY to convience a certain person with evidence. Even when the evidence is staring him in the face, he will still dispute it (remember the flags at the DNC?)




Cat

Why wouldn't anyone want a paper trail of recorded ballots for voting, the most important and universal instrument of our democracy?
???

Because then, there would be undisputable proof of how people actually voted ;)

But...I don't understand...why wouldn't anybody want undisputable proof of how they actually voted?
???

Democracy todsay is such a misnomer. Sure, we vote for our leaders... but no matter who they are or what party they are from, they end up doing whatever they want or whatever big business wants them to do. The world of politics in this country and many other so-called "democracies" is a spectator sport. People get minimally involved, they swallow what the various media feed them. No matter whom we vote for, we only have a vague idea of what this person intends to do with the power we hand to him. Once in office, an official will toe the line... always. We have no real say in what will happen... if an elected official intends to do something, even if he knows 90% of the public disagrees, he'll do it anyway because money talks. In this respect, our democracy is a failure.

Bush is going to do what his people want him to do. It doesn't matter what Republicans want (and they'll want whatever he tells them to want, big deal Republicans, you still have no say in the matter) and it doesn't matter what Democrats want. What matters is what big business wants. The only way anything gets done in this country is in either the midst of hysteria or if the corporate world gets behind it.

Thanks Philbo for posting those stats. I agree that this SHOULD be looked into-but it won't which is very disturbing to democracy. However, I wouldn't even TRY to convience a certain person with evidence. Even when the evidence is staring him in the face, he will still dispute it (remember the flags at the DNC?)




Cat


Looked into?  What the hell was Fox, CNN, ABC, and The Miami Herald doing?  What do you think the green party and the libertarian party are doing RIGHT NOW, recounting New Hampshire, soon to be Ohio and New Mexico and checking for fruad and/or problems.  What the hell do you want?

Looked into?  What the hell was Fox, CNN, ABC, and The Miami Herald doing?  What do you think the green party and the libertarian party are doing RIGHT NOW, recounting New Hampshire, soon to be Ohio and New Mexico and checking for fruad and/or problems.  What the hell do you want?


Put your shotgun back in the closet, Jethro, we're only having a discussion. Chill out.

Democracy todsay is such a misnomer. Sure, we vote for our leaders... but no matter who they are or what party they are from, they end up doing whatever they want or whatever big business wants them to do. The world of politics in this country and many other so-called "democracies" is a spectator sport. People get minimally involved, they swallow what the various media feed them. No matter whom we vote for, we only have a vague idea of what this person intends to do with the power we hand to him. Once in office, an official will toe the line... always. We have no real say in what will happen... if an elected official intends to do something, even if he knows 90% of the public disagrees, he'll do it anyway because money talks. In this respect, our democracy is a failure.

Bush is going to do what his people want him to do. It doesn't matter what Republicans want (and they'll want whatever he tells them to want, big deal Republicans, you still have no say in the matter) and it doesn't matter what Democrats want. What matters is what big business wants. The only way anything gets done in this country is in either the midst of hysteria or if the corporate world gets behind it.

Precisely.  That's why the elections are so emphatic on "values."  For actual legislative matters, Kerry would roll over for the wishes of big business every time!

Put your shotgun back in the closet, Jethro, we're only having a discussion. Chill out.
I agree with some things you say but, "Jethro" is not very nice. I would just like to also say that your Kerry with John Lennon reminds me of two losers. Kerry in the election and Lennon who abondoned his 1st born child Julian ::)

I agree with some things you say but, "Jethro" is not very nice. I would just like to also say that your Kerry with John Lennon reminds me of two losers. Kerry in the election and Lennon who abondoned his 1st born child Julian ::)

BoBo, must you judge everybody?  Does it give you a charge to feel morally superior to people?  It's the right-wing epidemic, IMHO.

Maybe he was referring to "Jethro Tull."
;D

BoBo, must you judge everybody?  Does it give you a charge to feel morally superior to people.  It's the right-wing epidemic, IMHO.

Maybe he was referring to "Jethro Tull."
;D



Why? Because could it be that he is "Too Old to Rock and Roll and too Young to Die"?  :D ;D ;D

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Ok, back to the topic.



Cat

Why? Because could it be that he is "Too Old to Rock and Roll and too Young to Die"?  :D ;D ;D

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Ok, back to the topic.



Cat



He can go "Skating Away" as far as I'm concerned!
:-\\

He can go "Skating Away" as far as I'm concerned!
:-\\




LMAO!



Cat