DIEBOLD

[mattp]

...and extend the criticism on what needs fixed beyond them.

 

Agreed here too. Let's just all feel good about this thing and agree all the way around. We'll have foreign election observers, they'll review the voter registration process as well as the elections themselves, and they'll conduct exit polls for a statistical check for obvious "anomalies." There is no reason we cannot have elections that are counted fairly, even if those crooks in Washington will do what they're going to do anyway.

[tvashtarkatena]

I manned a polling place during the 2004 election for our get out the vote efforts. At around 5:00 there was the predictable after-work rush to vote: the place was packed. All the voting booths were full, so people just voted by filling in their ballots wherever: the floor, wall, etc. There was no bottleneck. Had electronic voting machines been in use, there would have been a huge bottleneck, and many folks might have left without voting after a long wait (as in what happened in Ohio). I realized then and there that this is a much bigger problem with electronic voting than hacking: the controlling of voter turnout in certain key precincts by controlling the number of machines alotted to those districts. For example, some key (democratic) precincts in Ohio had as few as 2 working (there were many 'malfunctions') voting machines, an incredible and unnecessary restriction on the process. It worked: many voters left after too long a wait in those precincts.

 

Paper ballots, counted by machine, are where it's at. No bottlneck, same efficiency and benefit of electronic data collection. Voting machines, due to the ease with which they can be manipulated to restrict or corrupt the voting process, should be banned.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I agree, though: there would seem to be no reason to argue that we SHOULD use them at this point -- unless you like the result they produce. KK wants to complain the completely legal recount in Washington was unfair yet discount any complaint about obvious problems in Florida and Ohio.

 

The Florida ballots were examined over and over and over again, including by biased left-winger journalists trying to overturn the results (they would benefit hugely by this if they could do it - back to the sensationalism and profit-maximization theme). The results were always the same, no matter how you looked at all those chads - Bush won.

 

In Ohio, the margin of victory was huge and there was not enough basis to claim that election was fradulent. If there were, the lefties would have pursued this to the bitter end. I conclude they didn't because they would lose - it just didn't happen. But you can believe to the contrary all you want.

 

Keep grasping for straws, man.

 

As for media bias - the way the election results were reported in 2000 was a clear demonstration of that. The media wanted to discourage R turnout, and slanted the coverage to make it look unnecessary - e.g. the Fla panhandle districts. And I'll never forget the glum depressed looks on all the faces of all the major TV network news coverage when the R's took congress in 1994, or Bush was reelected, and how OPPOSITE the tone was when the gleefully reported a D victory in congress in 2006. But of course you didn't see that. Talk about ostriches.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

I can't think of a single reason why anyone would object to improving electronic voting to eliminate concerns of results tampering, and I can't think of a lot of reasons why we shouldn't use electronic voting tell such safeguards are in place.

 

Maybe we should bring in observers to monitor our elections - just like we do in other countries. No, I'm not joking.

 

There already are observers in polling places, from both parties and independent watchdog groups. Lack of observation is not the issue. You can't "observe" what's going on inside a voting machine. That's the issue.

Edited January 11, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

I agree, though: there would seem to be no reason to argue that we SHOULD use them at this point -- unless you like the result they produce. KK wants to complain the completely legal recount in Washington was unfair yet discount any complaint about obvious problems in Florida and Ohio.

 

The Florida ballots were examined over and over and over again, including by biased left-winger journalists trying to overturn the results (they would benefit hugely by this if they could do it - back to the sensationalism and profit-maximization theme). The results were always the same, no matter how you looked at all those chads - Bush won.

 

In Ohio, the margin of victory was huge and there was not enough basis to claim that election was fradulent. If there were, the lefties would have pursued this to the bitter end. I conclude they didn't because they would lose - it just didn't happen. But you can believe to the contrary all you want.

 

Keep grasping for straws, man.

 

As for media bias - the way the election results were reported in 2000 was a clear demonstration of that. The media wanted to discourage R turnout, and slanted the coverage to make it look unnecessary - e.g. the Fla panhandle districts. And I'll never forget the glum depressed looks on all the faces of all the major TV network news coverage when the R's took congress in 1994, or Bush was reelected, and how OPPOSITE the tone was when the gleefully reported a D victory in congress in 2006. But of course you didn't see that. Talk about ostriches.

 

Support your statements about FL and OH.

[tvashtarkatena]

hugh (i'm talking to the guy behind the curtain, actually), the stalking stuff isn't funny, brah.

 

is there anything I do thats funny?

 

Polarized up the pooper.

[Hugh Conway]

hugh (i'm talking to the guy behind the curtain, actually), the stalking stuff isn't funny, brah.

 

is there anything I do thats funny?

 

You can be funny Hugh, even if sometimes its just the way you smell. I would miss you if you got banned.

 

You keep me around to toy with? Puppetmaster.

[mattp]

Support your statements about FL and OH

He might come up with something for Ohio, though I don't think his assertion that the margins were so large in Ohio as to defeat any concerns about fairness is going to hold up.

 

In Florida, however, everything I've read has indicated that any fair recount would have put Gore over the top - but the idiot Democrats requested an odd recouting scheme that would actually not have done so.

 

As we've seen in the bias thread, though, KK may suddenly find he has no time to talk about this when we ask for facts or examples to back up his broad statements. I'm still wondering if he thought there was voter fraud in the Washingotn recount.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

 

actually, i've gone farther in answering you then I intended out of courtesy.

 

the fact is this crap has been discussed ad nauseam both here and in public in general. you will not be convinced no matter what about 2000, so what is the point? I was surprised that any sane person actually thinks Kerry won in 2004 in OH, but I shouldn't be surprised by the depth of conspiracy-theory nuts in this country.

 

will I argue this for the next 5 hours with you? sorry, no. enjoy your delusions. oh, and keep talking about 2000 and 2004, I'm sure that'll help the D's win in '08.

[tvashtarkatena]

All my reading came up with the same conclusion in FL: a Gore victory. And there was so many irregularities in OH that anyone who gives a rip about the integrity of the voting process, regardless of party affiliation, should be greatly concerned.

 

There's not "conspiracy theory" here. A US Presidential election is the most important decision made. It should come as no surprise that there are those who would use every means possible to ensure a desired outcome.

 

You won't get any non-tabloid quality sources from KKK. He's always been long on opinions but short on credible supporting evidence. He's a type. When you shine a flashlight on him, he scurries away yelling "why should I bother arguing with an idiot like you?!"

Edited January 11, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[Hugh Conway]

Polarized up the pooper.

 

my poopers an isolator - traffic only goes one way.

[tvashtarkatena]

Wow! Right on cue!

[tvashtarkatena]

Polarized up the pooper.

 

my poopers an isolator - traffic only goes one way.

 

out your mouth?

[Hugh Conway]

Polarized up the pooper.

 

my poopers an isolator - traffic only goes one way.

 

out your mouth?

 

and into yours - they don't call me hotcarl for nothing

[Fairweather]

Matt, how do you feel about the illegal voter registration efforts of ACORN?

[mattp]

I don't approve of ACORN or anybody else engaging in voter fraud.

[Fairweather]

Read it and weep, Matt.

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Read it and weep, Matt.

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html

 

Yes, this was widely reported.

 

This information is repeated on Wikipedia, along with this:

 

Additionally, The Media Consortium hired the National Opinion Research Center to examine 175,010 ballots that were never counted in Florida. [5] The investigation took 8 months and cost $900,000.[citation needed] Their results showed that the winning candidate varied based on the method used to include or interpret ballots.[43] For cases where all of their examiners agreed, the nine different recount scenarios resulted in Bush prevailing four times, and Gore prevailing in the other five. Ironically enough, under the recount rules initially requested by Gore, Bush would have won, and under the rules requested by Bush, Gore would have won.

 

Interesting, how you have to define the rules over and over again to get the result the "D"s wanted.

 

All I can say is thank God that moron Gore was not elected. And I hope the D's choke on that fact all their lives.

 

[mattp]

All I can say is thank God that moron Gore was not elected. And I hope the D's choke on that fact all their lives.

 

Now that's the most ignorant thing you've posted in a long time. Between the two, Gore is the moron and not Bush?

[Fairweather]

I don't approve of ACORN or anybody else engaging in voter fraud.

 

So where is your outrage? Their illegal efforts have likely thrown elections for Democrats across the nation - including here in Washington.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

All I can say is thank God that moron Gore was not elected. And I hope the D's choke on that fact all their lives.

 

Now that's the most ignorant thing you've posted in a long time. Between the two, Gore is the moron and not Bush?

 

choke, baby, choke

 

 

[Fairweather]

All I can say is thank God that moron Gore was not elected. And I hope the D's choke on that fact all their lives.

 

Now that's the most ignorant thing you've posted in a long time. Between the two, Gore is the moron and not Bush?

 

So what do you think of the PBS/Miami Herald report. Matt?

[Hugh Conway]

I don't approve of ACORN or anybody else engaging in voter fraud.

 

So where is your outrage? Their illegal efforts have likely thrown elections for Democrats across the nation - including here in Washington.

 

squirrels shouldn't vote

[Fairweather]

Here's an audit a full year after the fact from your favorite: The New York Times:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html?ex=1200200400&en=8aac64c8ad5f0d52&ei=5070

 

Any "thoughts", Matt? Can we put this to conspiracy bed now?

[Hugh Conway]

Can we put this to conspiracy bed now?

 

is she cute?