mattp

Say what? You agree that it is a bad idea to deny there was a problem yet you suggest I not refer to the contradiction I see where Bush comments on how other countries might not hold fair elections?

I'm not following you. We are not talking about photo captions. But I don't think the test is whether some mythical prudent person would have said whatever it was to her face.

Unlike your friend Rossi? I don't think dignity would have suggested he not question an election that was not counted accuartly. That is almost the opposite of dignity - it shows a lack of self esteem and is not based on any high road. The "good of the nation" would be promoted if, in the context of discussing our recent elections, we were discussing how to make them fairer and how to make them appear fairer. Not in denying that there was a problem, then arguing that if there was a problem it is just politics as usual for the past 150 years.

Yes, we've been all around about that. His lawyers were idiots and the only possible way they could have lost a recount was by the selective method that THEY requested. That was just plain stupid. But where does a lack of DIGNITY come in?

Huh?

Gary: might the content of the photo, along with other factors related to the context in which it appears, also have something to do with it?

I agree with woofies’ most recent post but Jay continues to argue with what I didn’t say. Now you, Mr. F, come along with your usual response. I take it you agree with your president when, this morning, he said that he hopes Cuba holds a fair election. Don’t you think we should, too? Your pals here are arguing that we shouldn’t try - no maybe we should try - but they did it first.

I don't think it would require there to be any lewd comments for it to be fair for someone to request that their photo be removed, Gary. Certainly, the tone of the discussion and maybe some of the specific things said had a lot to do with our various reactions to it, though. And that includes the reactions of those who were sympathetic and unsympathetic with the photo being removed.

I didn't say nobody had put forth the argument, Jay, and in fact I suggested the opposite: I said I believed that HAD been at least one historic basis for the practice. Yes, the practice certainly CAN be used as a backhanded way to produce a desired result.

Jay, the "statement that I am basing my case on" is the argument that they couldn't make machines that would reliably produce a receipt. It is the apparent showing that the machines were hackable. It is the exit polling and other data that suggests that this may have happened.

It seems to me Woofie's argument is: They didn't do it. But if they did, it is OK because the other guys do it too. You're right, ChucK. I don't think he'll stick with this line of reasoning if it goes the other way.

So that justifies redrawing the voting districts to shut the other party out, contracting with a private company who says they are going to make voting machines that will deliver the votes to your side and then refusing to address complaints about how it looks as if they did exactly that, or interfering with access to the polls in the other party's stronghold districts? That justifies accepting the word of the voting machine company who says they can't make a machine that produces a paper receipt when they make bank machines that do that flawlessly and which - by the way - are much more "hackproof?" I don't know whether fair elections would favor which party, but are you arguing that we shouldn't try?

Selkirk, the first post of the thread indicated the author's pleasure in seeing the sport betty's wearing bra tops - or something like that. With that kind of a wind-up, I'm afraid anybody posting the photo that I admit I didn't see should probably have been aware of the fact that a portrait of a woman, whether she was showing less skin than she might show or not, might be thought provocative. Maybe the photo-poster thought he was "inside the line," but it doesn't seem too far fetched to accept the idea that somebody else disagreed.

I haven't studied it, Jay. If somebody convinced me that we needed to have some measure of gerrymandering or there would never be any representation of a minority view in either local or state or national government, I guess I might be willing to accept some form of gerrymandering. I have not encountered that argument. In general, I think that if we say it is OK for the party in power to manipulate the process based on a desired result we are undermining a sense of fairness in the process.

Go Muffy! You're saying what you think about it and not holding any punches, but in my opinion you are not attacking anybody. I entered the discussion late, and didn't see the photo. I think I saw all the relevant posts, though. I don't think it was so much the case that there were lewd comments as much as it was a sense that the photo itself was personal or suggestive of lewdness in some manner, and then there was the bickering back and forth about who is the bigger jerk for taking this or that position on whether or not the picture was OK in the first place or whether cc.com moderators ought to honor a request to remove a photo such as that one.

Don't the states do it?

I think that has been a stated reason for it in some instances. However, I'd venture a guess that some more neutral form of general redistricting would still result in there being districts dominated by black voters, hispanics, various Asian populations, or for that matter Mormons.

No time for reading comprehension? I clearly did NOT make such an argument. What I said was that the Republicans have been more successful LATELY but I suffer no illusion that the Democrats would not do the same if they had the same access.

Has anybody really talked much about this? I know that gerrymandering is as old as American Pie, but doesn't it just plain stink? The sitting politicians would never support it but might it otherwise be feasible to redraw the maps based on some modern census data or something at least arguably apolitical like market-area analysis, or simple geometry?

OK then. Let's see what happens if the Dems take power for several years. IF they redraw the voting districts to favor their reelection, if the newest government contractor for voting machines says they are going to deliver votes to the Dems and it looks as if they may in fact actually do so, and if the dems interfere with access to the polls in Republican districts you are not going to complain. Gerrymandering, lying about the capability to make election machines that produce a receipt, providing reduced services for voters in specific districts is all legal, right? I'm not saying the Democrats are necessarily more honest than the Republicans, but it seems clear that the R's took advantage of power and access to the process. It DOES cause cynicism - even among voters who may share your political views on other topics.

The weird thing, in my view, is the posturing that goes into discussing these things on cc.com. It is situation normal, perhaps, but nonetheless it is weird. In my view, Muffy was right:

Would you argue that the recent problems with elections, that overwhelmingly occurred at the behest of Republicans, has NOT undermined faith in the fairness of the American electoral process? Lets start a new thread so you can make your point. I gotta get some work done today, but I can spare a few minutes on that.

mmm cuban smokes....

Damn, KK. You didn't take my bait and you wrote something I agree with. What's wrong with you?

I liked hearing Bush say this morning that he hopes they have fair elections. If he'd have felt the same about his own election I bet we wouldn't be bogged down in Iraq right now. Te guys who think Castro was the biggest criminal since Hitler and Stalin, however, will probably see no contradiction in GW's remarks.