DIEBOLD

[KaskadskyjKozak]

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?

 

no, but, well, umm, he also read that Gore really won. he read it all over the place. every place he read said that Gore won. really. not in tabloids. not left-wing print. he just can't remember where he read it right now, or provide any citations. but he did see it. really.

 

[Fairweather]

I manned a polling place during the 2004 election for our get out the vote efforts.

 

You should not be allowed within 100 meters of a polling center on election day - except to cast your vote. (And neither should I.)

[Hugh Conway]

(And neither should I.)

 

damn straight you shouldn't vote

[mattp]

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

 

Did you read the article you cite here? If you actually read what it says, rather than just the headline, it is pretty ambiguous. The bottom line: a full and fair recount applying consistent standards would have yielded Gore thet winner.

[Fairweather]

Reading comprehension issues, junior?

[Fairweather]

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

 

Did you read the article you cite here? If you actually read what it says, rather than just the headline, it is pretty ambiguous. The bottom line: a full and fair recount applying consistent standards would have yielded Gore thet winner.

 

Holy shit! You're kidding. Yes, I read the articles thoroughly. Are you sure you're on the same planet here? I'd be interested to hear your reasoning. It's gotta be pretty convoluted.

[tvashtarkatena]

I manned a polling place during the 2004 election for our get out the vote efforts.

 

You should not be allowed within 100 meters of a polling center on election day - except to cast your vote. (And neither should I.)

 

No, poll watchers are allowed access to this open process, and should be. We are allowed, and should be, to track whether or not individuals have voted and to contact them if they have not and urge them to do so. We go to there homes, drive them to polls, even translate languages for them. We can't know how they voted, of course, but we can know whether or not they've voted, because they must sign a register at the polling place, and, as a public document, we can track that register. We only track infrequent voters: registered democrats who have voted in at least 1 out of the past 4 elections but not in all 4 of the past election. For this we use county voting records, which list registered voters name, contact info, and whether they voted or not in any given election (but not who they voted for). This is a public document, of course. We are not allowed, however, to challenge voters or attempt to pursuade voters withing a certain distance from the polling place, nor are we allowed to, nor can we display campaign signs within this distance.

 

Thinking of "sitting out the next election?" Think again. If you miss an election, you become an infrequent voter, and people such as myself will bug the living shit out of you until you drag your lazy ass to the polls and fulfill your democratic responsibility.

 

I realize this process may seem strange to someone who's never participated this actively in the democratic process, but that's how get out the vote efforts work, and it's worked this way for a long, long time. It's an open process, as it should be.

 

I'll be getting out the vote this year, as I do every election. As for people such as yourself who don't believe in this kind of thing: great. Better for our side.

Edited January 12, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[KaskadskyjKozak]

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

 

Did you read the article you cite here? If you actually read what it says, rather than just the headline, it is pretty ambiguous. The bottom line: a full and fair recount applying consistent standards would have yielded Gore thet winner.

 

Holy shit! You're kidding. Yes, I read the articles thoroughly. Are you sure you're on the same planet here? I'd be interested to hear your reasoning. It's gotta be pretty convoluted.

 

His reading skills have also led to the conclusion that there is

a systematic bias in favor of the War in Iraq and the surge "working" over the past few weeks.

 

[Fairweather]

I'm what is referred to in Pierce County as a super voter - that is, I have not missed an election or primary since age 18. (I'm now 45) My contention is that super-partisans - like you and I - should not be (edit: physically) monitoring polls on election day. I said nothing about "get out the vote" efforts. And lately, it seems that only organizations in support of the "D's" are having trouble following the rules ala ACORN. Do you have an affiliation with this group?

[tvashtarkatena]

Fortunately, the Thought Police do not yet differentiate between those who are "allowed" to participate in the democratic process and those who are not. The democratic process is equally open to everyone...as it should be.

 

Never heard of ACORN. My (two separate) get out the vote programs were coordinated by the Democratic party and Moveon.

 

Anecdotally, the only violation I witnessed at the polling place in 2004 was by the Republican poll watcher, who challenged a hispanic voter I had driven to the polls for proof of his citizenship; a flagrant violation of Washington State law. I immediately notified the non-partisan ACLU poll watcher, and that little misunderstanding got cleared up right quick.

Edited January 12, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[olyclimber]

its funny how i can make a thread about diebold, an issue we can probably all agree on, but the thread still is all about our differences and demonizing each other. i guess that is what makes the world go around. enjoy!

[Fairweather]

Never heard of ACORN? You're kidding, right? In denial?

Edited January 12, 2008 by Fairweather

[KaskadskyjKozak]

its funny how i can make a thread about diebold, an issue we can probably all agree on, but the thread still is all about our differences and demonizing each other. i guess that is what makes the world go around. enjoy!

 

I think most of us already agreed that DIEBOLD sucks donkey Schlang and should not be used.

 

Now that we've agreed on that, we've decided to resume a dog pile/kill-the-pill style sprayfest.

 

 

[mattp]

Read it again, Fairweather. It says that

if all counties had followed state law in reviewing the absentee ballots, Mr. Gore would have picked up as many as 290 additional votes, enough to tip the election in Mr. Gore's favor in some of the situations studied in the statewide ballot review.

See top of page two. Lower down on page two, it spends time analizing different ways of counting "dimpled ballots" and incompete marks on optical scanned ballots. It states

If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards, and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won, by a very narrow margin.

It then goes over some different standards for couting dimples, and in two of three scenarios, Gore wins. It then concludes:

All the other combinations likewise produced additional votes for Mr. Gore, giving him a slight margin over Mr. Bush, when at least two of the three coders agreed.

After this discussion, the author then discounts these results because nobody in the days immediately after the election requested a full and consistent recount:

While these are fascinating findings, they do not represent a real- world situation. There was no set of circumstances in the fevered days after the election that would have produced a hand recount of all 175,000 overvotes and undervotes.

 

 

---

 

Your ball.

 

 

[Fairweather]

Fortunately, the Thought Police do not yet differentiate between those who are "allowed" to participate in the democratic process and those who are not. The democratic process is equally open to everyone...as it should be.

 

Never heard of ACORN. My (two separate) get out the vote programs were coordinated by the Democratic party and Moveon.

 

Anecdotally, the only violation I witnessed at the polling place in 2004 was by the Republican poll watcher, who challenged a hispanic voter I had driven to the polls for proof of his citizenship; a flagrant violation of Washington State law. I immediately notified the non-partisan ACLU poll watcher, and that little misunderstanding got cleared up right quick.

 

Funny. My father is a poll watcher too and regularly has to ask sign wavers - by his account exclusively WEA members and Democratic candidate campaigners - to remove themselves from the restricted space around the poll site.

[Fairweather]

Read it again, Fairweather. It says that

if all counties had followed state law in reviewing the absentee ballots, Mr. Gore would have picked up as many as 290 additional votes, enough to tip the election in Mr. Gore's favor in some of the situations studied in the statewide ballot review.

See top of page two. Lower down on page two, it spends time analizing different ways of counting "dimpled ballots" and incompete marks on optical scanned ballots. It states

If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards, and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won, by a very narrow margin.

It then goes over some different standards for couting dimples, and in two of three scenarios, Gore wins. It then concludes:

All the other combinations likewise produced additional votes for Mr. Gore, giving him a slight margin over Mr. Bush, when at least two of the three coders agreed.

After this discussion, the author then discounts these results because nobody in the days immediately after the election requested a full and consistent recount:

While these are fascinating findings, they do not represent a real- world situation. There was no set of circumstances in the fevered days after the election that would have produced a hand recount of all 175,000 overvotes and undervotes.

 

 

---

 

Your ball.

 

 

 

You're picking out of mid sentence at times. From the NY Times article - one full year after the fact:

 

" A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.

 

Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court. "

 

Slam Dunk.

Edited January 12, 2008 by Fairweather

[tvashtarkatena]

Fortunately, the Thought Police do not yet differentiate between those who are "allowed" to participate in the democratic process and those who are not. The democratic process is equally open to everyone...as it should be.

 

Never heard of ACORN. My (two separate) get out the vote programs were coordinated by the Democratic party and Moveon.

 

Anecdotally, the only violation I witnessed at the polling place in 2004 was by the Republican poll watcher, who challenged a hispanic voter I had driven to the polls for proof of his citizenship; a flagrant violation of Washington State law. I immediately notified the non-partisan ACLU poll watcher, and that little misunderstanding got cleared up right quick.

 

Funny. My father is a poll watcher too and regularly has to ask sign wavers - by his account exclusively WEA members and Democratic candidate campaigners - to remove themselves from the restricted space around the poll site.

 

Not funny: normal, if these people were campaigning. As I've already stated, but will repeat for your benefit, active campaigning (which does not include poll watching/getting out the vote) ie, soliciting voters in or near the polling place, is unlawful in Washington. Had we engaged in it, we would have been removed from the polling place as well.

 

I would recommend as a "super partisan" (who's never gotten out the vote or worked for a campaign?), you actually become a poll watcher or get more active in some other capacity (you vote in EVERY election? Wow...that's impressive) so that you may familiarize yourself with the process a bit more.

Edited January 12, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[Hugh Conway]

Reading comprehension issues, junior?

 

i pay people to read for me

[mattp]

Nope, Mr. Fairweather, you lose.

 

I did not argue that Gore would have won if the Supreme COurt had not stepped in. Scroll up through the thread to verify if you like. I argued that a full and fair recount would have made Gore the winner and I stated that the recount requested by the stupid Democrats would not have done so. As you say: reading comprehension can be a tricky thing sometimes.

[tvashtarkatena]

Nope, Mr. Fairweather, you lose.

 

I did not argue that Gore would have won if the Supreme COurt had not stepped in. Scroll up through the thread to verify if you like. I argued that a full and fair recount would have made Gore the winner and I stated that the recount requested by the stupid Democrats would not have done so. As you say: reading comprehension can be a tricky thing sometimes.

 

Yes, I came to the same clear conclusion here. But, as we well know, our FW believes, and doesn't believe, all kinds of things.

[Hugh Conway]

Yes, I came to the same clear conclusion here. But, as we well know, our FW believes, and doesn't believe, all kinds of things.

 

He believes in the power of prayer

[Fairweather]

Nope, Mr. Fairweather, you lose.

 

I did not argue that Gore would have won if the Supreme COurt had not stepped in. Scroll up through the thread to verify if you like. I argued that a full and fair recount would have made Gore the winner and I stated that the recount requested by the stupid Democrats would not have done so. As you say: reading comprehension can be a tricky thing sometimes.

 

Again, Matt, for your tired eyes: The studies indicate that Bush would have won any manner of recount. Now; you're trying to claim there was yet deeper fraud involved - I understand. But if that is your contention then you must take your argument to the national level and balance your "disenfranchisement" theory with opposite irregularities - like non-citizens, disenfranchised felons, deceased, duplicate, voters who did illegally vote in the 2000 election and likely lean Democrat. Are you suggesting that level of research should have been undertaken in all 50 states post-election?

Edited January 12, 2008 by Fairweather

[mattp]

Fairweather: slow down. Read. Think. Try again.

[Hugh Conway]

Fairweather: slow down. Read. Think. Try again.

 

Sir: Please pull forward to the window.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Nope, Mr. Fairweather, you lose.

 

I did not argue that Gore would have won if the Supreme COurt had not stepped in. Scroll up through the thread to verify if you like. I argued that a full and fair recount would have made Gore the winner and I stated that the recount requested by the stupid Democrats would not have done so. As you say: reading comprehension can be a tricky thing sometimes.

 

Again, Matt, for your tired eyes: The studies indicate that Bush would have won any manner of recount. Now; you're trying to claim there was yet deeper fraud involved - I understand. But if that is your contention then you must take your argument to the national level and balance your "disenfranchisement" theory with opposite irregularities - like non-citizens, disenfranchised felons, deceased, duplicate, voters who did illegally vote in the 2000 election and likely lean Democrat. Are you suggesting that level of research should have been undertaken in all 50 states post-election?

 

Mattp defines a "fair" recount by one that garners the outcome he wants, just as he defines "unbiased" reporting of the news as reporting the story he wants, the way he wants it.