Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

snood
The South sure did make a dramatic change it went from solidly democratic to solidly republican. In addition the changes in the South were dramatic because they were so out of tune with the times. They were still living a pre civil war life style at the beginning of the civil rights movement.

um i kinda think changing from dixie-crat to republican was hardly a change at all.

Precisely, Dys. My understanding is that the South had voted Democratic because it couldn't stand the party of Lincoln. Then, when the Democrats sorta became the party that Lincoln would have been in a hundred years later, one by one, the Dixiecrats ran to be Republicans; so, no, not much change at all!

As I have written a hundred time - this is the swing vote in America - sad, but true. What is now the hateful, bigoted neocons that use to be the yellow dog democrat!

in complete agreement, BillW

Also, this is not such a drastic move. As explain by Trotsky, and interpreted by me:

The political spectrum is not a flat line with right wing on one side and left wing on the other. Instead, it is round like a clocks face with the centrists and moderates at 6 o'clock with Totalitarians, whether Facist or Socialist approaching 12 from either side.

Therefore, it is only a slight shift from left to right or vice-versa depending upon who is in power. It is then the job of the mainstream ideologues to prevent the extremist from attaining power - something the Republicans are negligent in doing at this point in time. Therefore, our problems in the USA are dire!

I also see the clock as having depth (or a third dimension), which allows for the large number of factions - though this vast complexity escapes me in the large part.

Right again, IMHO, BillW, and this one was a really hard thing for me to accept because in my younger demonstratin' days, I actually looked at things as if they were on a straight line: now that I'm all grow'd up, I understand :wink: !

<deleted duplicate post>

I understand what you're saying about the bigotry being a "precursor" to the change I was referring to, bill. Maybe I was being a little rosey about the diner sit-ins in Charlotte, and the "first-black" events that happened, and the bus-strikes, and other activism, because I'm from there, and it may be a little harder to be dismissive of the region. But it's true that they vote Republican like thre's no tomorrow, and it pisses me off.

whew! serious computer hickups!

(Speaking of computer hiccups...)

A little more about our new voting machines -- a resource for those interested in the software which controls our elections: http://ecotalk.org/VotingSecurity.htm

Tartarino
Would that make it possible for a couple of really good hackers to elect a president?

I think that has already happen au, anyway - really cheap hackers

This sentence (from Tart's citation) makes two very broad statements but no evidence, support or proof of these statements is offered. We are apparently to believe this simply because the author has written it.

(Apparently some here are willing to do just that.)

That machines can be tampered with is a given. That it is universally "easy" to do so with all voting machines is not. Claiming that monitoring of voting machines is "impossible" takes us beyond the unsupportable into the realm of stupidity. Frankly, I find it hard to believe that someone read the cited article, and came away thinking that it offered anything of value.

Tampering and fraud can happen with machines. Tampering and fraud can also happen without machines. In fact, I suspect that tampering and fraud are easier when you introduce the human element. Do we need to ensure that voting machines are properly programmed and correctly used? Sure. Should we be sure that we can monitor how well the machines are working and that the outcome accurately represents the inputs? Sure. Is it "impossible" to do this? NO. And it is laughable that anyone actually thinks it is.

"Claiming that monitoring of voting machines is "impossible" takes us beyond the unsupportable into the realm of stupidity"

"…it is laughable that anyone actually thinks it is."

Scrat - I have no problem with sarcasm, cynicism, or even downright nastiness - you can no doubt attest that I have facility with all the above.

But, when you take this tone gratuitously with someone, can you please spare all of us the wailing and gnashing of teeth about "attacking me, and not addressing the issues", when that someone retaliates? It is long past old.

Hey, snood, is tbere actually a person who belives in the history of the United States that the voting process was never tampered with? By both sides, incidentally. Tony Soprano won't believe it. That might be fiction but some people believe in fiction.

I don't know whether there is or isn't such a person, but I know that there exists the possibility of discussing it without talking down one's nose.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jun2001/ccr-j08.shtml

Hey - he can't help the size of his nose. Cuidado, mi amigo.