best said by John Stewart on the daily show on Nov 3rd:
“I really… miss… voter fraud”
Democrats should just do it, every election is going to be messed up.
Bush won by such a large percentage of the popular vote, I don’t think it could all be credited to voter fraud. I think its mostly credited to Evangalists! People who voted for bush had a great concern for social issues (gay marriage and abortion). I think this is a terrible reason to vote for a leader mostly because the government shouldn’t force these moral beliefs upon everybody. The people who voted so much for Bush were people who probably don’t even know any gay people.
Anyway, Bush pretty much won the election, and nothing is going to change that. As for the media, they are scared to do any story unless they have undeniable proof, else they won’t have the balls to go against the ‘regime’. The story might be covered in the next few weeks or not at all, and yes it should be covered soon, but we live in a corporate media world that focuses on ratings, and not informing the people of possible crisis. I wouldn’t be surprised if its not covered, just remember theres probably a lot more corruption in the government than any person outside the administration would be able to find.
lol sorry I just finished writing a speech on nuclear power and I decided its a good thing, and one of the few Bush policies that I can agree with. So I thought i’d be a little bit optimistic about the future, even though I was pretty upset about the election. I just dont like thinking so negatively.
voting fraud does not happen by accident, it is malicious
if the republicans thought they would win anyways, why fuck with the machines? just the mere fact that they did should disqualify bush on grounds that he s a fucked up mother fucker…
after the CIA sponsered murder of Allende, democratically elected socialist leader of…some south america country i can t remember Kissinger said “i don t see why the US should stand by and watch a government go socialist simply because of the irresponsibility of it s people”
alreadydead, it is far more likely to be by accident. Not all of the defects put Bush into more favour. Besides, there are so many people involved that would need to co-operate. The fact is that Diebold is simply incompetent.
I didn’t mean to make it sound like I don’t think voter fraud is totally messed up. The truth is just that it happens every election, just to lesser extents. And the presidential campaign may not be responsible, it could just be extremest republicans, or those who are extremely homophobic or something. I don’t think a president deserves to be disqualified, or kicked out of office because of some voter fraud that they may not even be responsible for. I do think the votes should be recast or counted in someway. Not to say I’m not suspicious, I wouldn’t be surprised if this is extreme corruption, but I don’t think theres solid proof that the president is responsible for it.
But we don’t even live in a real direct democracy. The real election hasn’t yet taken place. I do believe that our system has a lot of corruption, and we should rise up, but people just aren’t doing that.
Voter fraud/mistakes happen every election. The good news it has been getting less and less each time. You hear about it more these days, because the 2000 election was so close.
Past elections have gone in bigger margins, so the voter fraud and errors weren’t talked about as much. The last really close election we had in 1960, where JFK won the popular vote by fewer votes than Bush won Ohio. Ten thousand votes here or there in a few states, and Nixon would have won the election. Voter fraud was much more common in those days. Paper ballots were actually less reliable; it was common practice to have dead people voting, or non-voters voting, etc. The candidates cheated a lot more, and played chicken with one another. They held back the results for their precinct and waited for their opponent’s precinct to get reported–that way they would know how many extra votes they would need to create in order to win the total.
Nixon could have challenged the 1960 election, but he chose to concede immediately instead, “for the good of the country.”
post election support group.Strange I was just going to post about this in the There is another group that discovered in the counties that used electronic voting machines (no paper trail) Bush received 5% more votes than the exit polls in every county that used the electronic voting machines. However, this was not true in counties that used normal voting machines.
I agree that voter fraud happens every election and both sides engage in such practices. However I don’t agree that the problem is getting better. If anything it is getting worse. It used to be if one party stole a few hundred votes in one state it did not matter much. Now it can give a candidate victory in that state. Also, voter disenfranchisement is at an all time high. One county in Ohio people were waiting on line for 9 hours because in a huge county they only had 3 voting machines. The electronic voting opens the door for all kinds for fraud with no way to prove it.
It is very suspicious that the actual vote did not match the exit polls? Now this is coming from a person that appeared on fox news and is on the side of the republicans. He stated that exit polls are nearly foolproof way of monitoring an election. In his work of supervising overseas elections he often used exit polls to ensure there was no fraud in the election. If the exit polls were off they would take a closer look at the election in that country. Yet in this case where the exit polls did not match the actual vote in Ohio and other places we are not questioning the election and perhaps we should.
and yet my precinct of around 940+ people in a deeply red state had 6 voting machines … 5 used for the election and 1 for a demonstration.
When I voted I left no tangible evidence behind, and it reduced my confidence that my vote had worth.
2000 was the most controversial Election in history as the majority of American’s questioned their governments voting credibility and efficiency.
The answer was to remove the tangible evidence of paper ballots and have pure digital votes. Removing the possibility of performing a “recount” … another American right that has been stolen away. but tra laaa lalaa lalaa laaa CBS NBC or ABC doesn’t talk about it so it shouldn’t matter.
I understand one politician voted for the paperless voting machine and afterwards she was voted out of office … and demanded a recount!! duh! that is impossible now!
I don’t see the big deal about using these machines to print my ballot. I look over this tangible legal document and approve it is correct. And drop it in the big ol’ tranditional ballot box. These documents can then be hand and electronically counted if needed. … Nevada is the only state to have electronic paper ballots.
Removing tangible evidence from elections seems to be “tampering” with potential court evidence, and reduces the worth of the American votes. Our driver’s license, money, lottery ticket, and theme park season’s pass has a more legal/official “certificate” than our voice/mark of who we want president!
If I need my car’s title “notarized” with a legal stamp mark I want my vote to at least be something I can see and touch.
Thanks Bush! we question your first election and you remove all evidence to even attempt to question your second!
... but I heard "the gays" are trying to hold hands and that is the real enemy we should focus on right now.
I don’t know if something fishy went on there, but it is too late now.
I think we really need vote reform here in the United States. If you ask me, I think we should calibrate all fifty states to use the same system. That will get rid of a lot of confusion and finger pointing.
I think if we get all the states on the same level, a level where everyone agrees, things will go over much more smoothly.
I agree with doing voting through touch screen. But not the way it was done in this election where you vote with a screen, leave empty handed and have no way to know if your vote went to the right canidate.
This is what I think should happen:
Go in and vote using touch screen. No print out or anything for you to take home. Votes should be counted quickly and posted onto a online database. There you can log on after your vote is counted and make sure everything you voted for is what is accountable.
Of course there is loopholes to this. I’m sure some will complain of not having internet access. And I’m sure it will cost quite a bit. I don’t know.
Truthfully, I think the president needs to be elected directly by the popular vote, and the electoral college abolished. If you don’t know why we have an electoral college, then take a political science class, but its useless and actually harmful in today’s voting. There probably would have been a stronger push for this constitutional amendment to remove the electoral college if bush had won the popular vote, but lost ohio, and the election for example. then both democrats and republicans will feel the wrath of winning the pop. vote, and losing the election, which hasnt happened since 2000, and before that 1882 or soemthing crazy.
I’m not too upset about voter fraud this year becuase even if you took that into account, Bush won the popular vote, by a lot more than fraud could cover for, so in my ideal world, he would have fairly won the election.
As for a good article about why americans vote so stupidly, I really like this editorial, especially the last paragraph, I would reccomend reading it.
There will always be, will have to be, a certain level of access to the system beyond which one can make sure citizens will still be able to see their own votes but the vote counts do not match up to the seperate entries. And if there isn’t, then there are always security exploits. Besides, how can we tell that the message saying “Administrator password has been changed to a random string” (say) is true? How can we tell that the version running on the computers is the same as that approved?
The computers in the election system would probably have to be up constantly. There’s no leeway for taking it down if a security problem is found. (Both Windows and Linux require a reboot if there’s a security problem in the kernel. Both require a service to restart if a new version has been installed and needs to be used.) People could even go to the extent of finding problems in the voting software and its dependencies months before the election opens.
A paper trail means having one of those cheap dot-matrix printers (used for reciepts) at each electronic polling booth, and your vote being clearly printed for you to confirm. (You are not supposed to be able to access the printer to take any paper.) If you confirm, it just prints a lot more blank space (say) so that your vote cannot be seen by the next person to walk in. If you don’t confirm and pick something else instead, it’ll print that. The paper trail is only used for recounts.
However, if this was made, I would be demanding a recount every time I voted. Ah well.
Oh, and by the way… votes are supposed to be anonymous. They need to stay that way.
Eh. I figure that if people can get on and see that who they voted for is right, there will be ways to prevent things from happening that way. If it turns out a big group of people get on and their vote is wrong, then there will be an obvious problem and something would need to happen then.
Voting fraud turned many counties from approx. 75% Kerry into 75% Bush, this tipped Florida, whith which Kerry would have won.
There needs to be a paper trail for obvious reasons (re-counting), and vote counting should be done in both paper and computer simultaneously. The computers need to have an internet connection to communicate with the other electoral computers (those for counting votes, amongst others). These would be an easy hack for anyone who realy wants to. Either this has been proven or it has been proven that the republican controlled company that makes the voting machines can not be trusted. Votings should be co-supervised by people of different faiths, political beliefs and nationalities. Democracy to this date is a lie.
On another note, a Swedish poll showed that approx 75% of the 300000+ persons who voted thought that the American election can not be trusted. The scary thing was that about 5% thought it could. (obviously the rest were undecided)
Just because people can see that it says “You voted for George Bush” does not mean that it incremented the George Bush accumulator as opposed to the John Kerry accumulator. There can be other problems, too - one machine began counting backwards after the amount became too high for it to handle. However, if people had still been able to log on with their name (well, make it anonymous - a random ID) they would have seen the correct vote.
Do you have any evidence? Which counties in Florida? Are you sure that people there just don’t lie to exit polls?
eMb, technically a Wide area network could also be used. However, this involves actually laying communication lines. An alternative would be a Virtual private network over the Internet. They can be pretty secure.
Yeah, but its not like any Bush administration is going to go through any trouble with LANs crossing the entire USA or VPNs, seeing to the fact that they are the ones coming out on the winning end and how they have this war on “terror” to go through. Pah.
Even current paper ballots are electronically counted … most images of old people in some small town hand counting votes is just drama …
I think the paper ballots should be electronically counted and sorted. During recounts they could be presented as large stacks of “red” and “blue” … or whatever.
Elections should never be 24 hours!!
Elections are not for the politicians … it’s for the people!! We should never rush the most important time of our “united” relationship with government. The constituion is to restrict the government!!! not the people!!!
More Americans vote in “American Idol” than the presidential elections.
Wake up and vote … 2002 elections are ahead and democrats need your vote.
I think I’m just ranting now. stops
You are all pretty set on the thought that Bush had the election rigged. I doubt that it happened though. If there were any major problems we would hear about it.
It really is not a big surprise that not a lot of states changed in the last four years. Mainly because priorities didn’t change alot. If the election was held right after 9/11, things would have been different. But the fact that the United States has not suffered any attacks in our own country since is one of the main things that helped him win the election.
My state was one of the states that changed from Dem. to Rep. in this last election. From what I have heard from people around here is what made them vote Bush was when they heard that Kerry voted against banning late-term abortions.