0
   

Weeping and gnashing of teeth

 
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 12:30 pm
I think what was there was good, decent, upstanding, and those of us who went and sought that information found it and were reassured. The problem is that for whatever reason -- his own failings, being kept on the defensive by onslaughts, faulty strategy -- that never seemed to be conveyed to the people who weren't already convinced enough to seek out the info themselves.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 12:33 pm
Blackboxvoting is looking into the 3 million votes. There were discrepencies between exit polls, registered voters vs. turnout, questionable numbers of turnout in certain states, etc. Will be interesting to see the final tallies.

As I noted here yesterday, I crunched some numbers myself, and am surprised other sources haven't questioned some of the more obvious discrepencies. (Like why was California turnout down 10% from 2000, and Florida's and Arizona's up 25% and 35% respectively when other states had an average 15% increase in votes cast?)

Won't start any conspiracy theories, but I certainly don't believe the 3 million votes went to Bush.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 12:35 pm
It is certainly curious. I thought California might be influenced by 1) already being a shoe-in for Kerry and 2) the governator.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 12:38 pm
Yeah, Arizona is the only one of those that surprises me. Florida was decided by how many hundred votes in 2000? No better way to hammer home "your vote actually matters." California has been assumed to be blue forever. Not sure what would account for Arizona specifically, but doesn't necessarily send up a red flag.

Will be interested in blackboxvoting's conclusions, anyway.
0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 12:44 pm
Ok, I have to pose a question that I have not seen in ANY other political thread...
Wich leads me to believe that it is a very touchy subject.
I hope that asking this doesnt bring on personal attacks to me.. I am only posing a question.... Sad

Anyone watch the 911 movie ? Anyone understand it?
Anyone agree with it?
( yeah, paranoia at its finest.... Smile )

I am always thinking about the info brought out in Micheal Moores movie.
Lets just say... for the moment.. that it was true. ABout 90% was true..

THoughts? anyone?
I personally think that if one person can bring out all that information about a president that it would have make people rethink thier vote.
BUT it could have also been a big ploy on the Dems part to try to sway Rep voters..
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 12:45 pm
There's no doubt that everything in F9/11 was true. The bias came in how it was presented.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 12:46 pm
I considered that about California, too. But, they still know the popular count matters. And, just the week before, their Govenor came out sounding more like a democrat than republican. Perhaps the whole voting thing has worn them out recently.

Arizona was a HUGE surprise considering the number of articles recently about illegals entering and not having enough border patrols. If Bush can't get that under control in 3 years, why give him more time? We'll see.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 01:07 pm
Speaking of F9/11, be prepared for Michael's latest film (I'm totally guessing on this one, of course) as he had hundreds of cameras out there watching the elections as they unfolded.

My guess is we're gonna see some really nasty images of voter disenfranchisement relatively soon. Should cast even more doubt on the Bush pResidency.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 01:13 pm
Let us not forget

http://www.michaelmoore.com/_images/splash/bush-small.jpg
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 01:14 pm
You are quite the artist Dookie.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 01:25 pm
Voter fraud is certainly not out of the question. Wouldn't that be nice? We could have another impeachment..........or resignation, Nixon style. Oh goody. Those who pooh pooh every conspiracy theory as paranoid are not tuned into reality. People cheat, especially when there's big money involved.

I think Moore was absolutely correct about the motivation of the neo-cons and the Bush admin. It's about them getting rich. And they are.....oh so rich and getting richer. And I'm not talking about Halliburton. The Carlyle Group owns a very large percentage of the military industry. Guess whose getting rich off of this war? It's not the middle class.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 01:25 pm
I hope there is not election fraud. That's the last thing this country needs.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 01:27 pm
Well, I hope there's not too, FreeDuck. But if there was, then we should know.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 01:29 pm
Absolutely.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 02:30 pm
Quote:
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/kerry_won_.php

Kerry Won. . .
Greg Palast
November 04, 2004

Bush won Ohio by 136,483 votes. Typically in the United States, about 3 percent of votes cast are voided?-known as "spoilage" in election jargon?-because the ballots cast are inconclusive. Drawing on what happened in Florida and studies of elections past, Palast argues that if Ohio's discarded ballots were counted, Kerry would have won the state. Today, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports there are a total of 247,672 votes not counted in Ohio, if you add the 92,672 discarded votes plus the 155,000 provisional ballots. So far there's no indication that Palast's hypothesis will be tested because only the provisional ballots are being counted.

Kerry won. Here's the facts.

I know you don't want to hear it. You can't face one more hung chad. But I don't have a choice. As a journalist examining that messy sausage called American democracy, it's my job to tell you who got the most votes in the deciding states. Tuesday, in Ohio and New Mexico, it was John Kerry.

Most voters in Ohio thought they were voting for Kerry. CNN's exit poll showed Kerry beating Bush among Ohio women by 53 percent to 47 percent. Kerry also defeated Bush among Ohio's male voters 51 percent to 49 percent. Unless a third gender voted in Ohio, Kerry took the state.

So what's going on here? Answer: the exit polls are accurate. Pollsters ask, "Who did you vote for?" Unfortunately, they don't ask the crucial, question, "Was your vote counted?" The voters don't know.

Here's why. Although the exit polls show that most voters in Ohio punched cards for Kerry-Edwards, thousands of these votes were simply not recorded. This was predictable and it was predicted. [See TomPaine.com, "An Election Spoiled Rotten," November 1.]

Once again, at the heart of the Ohio uncounted vote game are, I'm sorry to report, hanging chads and pregnant chads, plus some other ballot tricks old and new.

The election in Ohio was not decided by the voters but by something called "spoilage." Typically in the United States, about 3 percent of the vote is voided, just thrown away, not recorded. When the bobble-head boobs on the tube tell you Ohio or any state was won by 51 percent to 49 percent, don't you believe it ... it has never happened in the United States, because the total never reaches a neat 100 percent. The television totals simply subtract out the spoiled vote.

Whose Votes Are Discarded?

And not all votes spoil equally. Most of those votes, say every official report, come from African-American and minority precincts. (To learn more, click here.)

We saw this in Florida in 2000. Exit polls showed Gore with a plurality of at least 50,000, but it didn't match the official count. That's because the official, Secretary of State Katherine Harris, excluded 179,855 spoiled votes. In Florida, as in Ohio, most of these votes lost were cast on punch cards where the hole wasn't punched through completely?-leaving a 'hanging chad,'?-or was punched extra times. Whose cards were discarded? Expert statisticians investigating spoilage for the government calculated that 54 percent of the ballots thrown in the dumpster were cast by black folks. (To read the report from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, click here .)

And here's the key: Florida is terribly typical. The majority of ballots thrown out (there will be nearly 2 million tossed out from Tuesday's election) will have been cast by African American and other minority citizens.

So here we go again. Or, here we don't go again. Because unlike last time, Democrats aren't even asking Ohio to count these cards with the not-quite-punched holes (called "undervotes" in the voting biz). Nor are they demanding we look at the "overvotes" where voter intent may be discerned.

Ohio is one of the last states in America to still use the vote-spoiling punch-card machines. And the Secretary of State of Ohio, J. Kenneth Blackwell, wrote before the election, "the possibility of a close election with punch cards as the state's primary voting device invites a Florida-like calamity."

But this week, Blackwell, a rabidly partisan Republican, has warmed up to the result of sticking with machines that have a habit of eating Democratic votes. When asked if he feared being this year's Katherine Harris, Blackwell noted that Ms. Fix-it's efforts landed her a seat in Congress.

Exactly how many votes were lost to spoilage this time? Blackwell's office, notably, won't say, though the law requires it be reported. Hmm. But we know that last time, the total of Ohio votes discarded reached a democracy-damaging 1.96 percent. The machines produced their typical loss?-that's 110,000 votes?-overwhelmingly Democratic.

The Impact Of Challenges

First and foremost, Kerry was had by chads. But the Democrat wasn't punched out by punch cards alone. There were also the 'challenges.' That's a polite word for the Republican Party of Ohio's use of an old Ku Klux Klan technique: the attempt to block thousands of voters of color at the polls. In Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida, the GOP laid plans for poll workers to ambush citizens under arcane laws?-almost never used?-allowing party-designated poll watchers to finger individual voters and demand they be denied a ballot. The Ohio courts were horrified and federal law prohibits targeting of voters where race is a factor in the challenge. But our Supreme Court was prepared to let Republicans stand in the voting booth door.

In the end, the challenges were not overwhelming, but they were there. Many apparently resulted in voters getting these funky "provisional" ballots?-a kind of voting placebo?-which may or may not be counted. Blackwell estimates there were 175,000; Democrats say 250,000. Pick your number. But as challenges were aimed at minorities, no one doubts these are, again, overwhelmingly Democratic. Count them up, add in the spoiled punch cards (easy to tally with the human eye in a recount), and the totals begin to match the exit polls; and, golly, you've got yourself a new president. Remember, Bush won by 136,483 votes in Ohio.

Enchanted State's Enchanted Vote

Now, on to New Mexico, where a Kerry plurality?-if all votes are counted?-is more obvious still. Before the election, in TomPaine.com, I wrote, "John Kerry is down by several thousand votes in New Mexico, though not one ballot has yet been counted."

How did that happen? It's the spoilage, stupid; and the provisional ballots.

CNN said George Bush took New Mexico by 11,620 votes. Again, the network total added up to that miraculous, and non-existent, '100 percent' of ballots cast.

New Mexico reported in the last race a spoilage rate of 2.68 percent, votes lost almost entirely in Hispanic, Native American and poor precincts?-Democratic turf. From Tuesday's vote, assuming the same ballot-loss rate, we can expect to see 18,000 ballots in the spoilage bin.

Spoilage has a very Democratic look in New Mexico. Hispanic voters in the Enchanted State, who voted more than two to one for Kerry, are five times as likely to have their vote spoil as a white voter. Counting these uncounted votes would easily overtake the Bush 'plurality.'

Already, the election-bending effects of spoilage are popping up in the election stats, exactly where we'd expect them: in heavily Hispanic areas controlled by Republican elections officials. Chaves County, in the "Little Texas" area of New Mexico, has a 44 percent Hispanic population, plus African Americans and Native Americans, yet George Bush "won" there 68 percent to 31 percent.

I spoke with Chaves' Republican county clerk before the election, and he told me that this huge spoilage rate among Hispanics simply indicated that such people simply can't make up their minds on the choice of candidate for president. Oddly, these brown people drive across the desert to register their indecision in a voting booth.

Now, let's add in the effect on the New Mexico tally of provisional ballots.

"They were handing them out like candy," Albuquerque journalist Renee Blake reported of provisional ballots. About 20,000 were given out. Who got them?

Santiago Juarez who ran the "Faithful Citizenship" program for the Catholic Archdiocese in New Mexico, told me that "his" voters, poor Hispanics, whom he identified as solid Kerry supporters, were handed the iffy provisional ballots. Hispanics were given provisional ballots, rather than the countable kind "almost religiously," he said, at polling stations when there was the least question about a voter's identification. Some voters, Santiago said, were simply turned away.

Your Kerry Victory Party

So we can call Ohio and New Mexico for John Kerry?-if we count all the votes.

But that won't happen. Despite the Democratic Party's pledge, the leadership this time gave in to racial disenfranchisement once again. Why? No doubt, the Democrats know darn well that counting all the spoiled and provisional ballots will require the cooperation of Ohio's Secretary of State, Blackwell. He will ultimately decide which spoiled and provisional ballots get tallied. Blackwell, hankering to step into Kate Harris' political pumps, is unlikely to permit anything close to a full count. Also, Democratic leadership knows darn well the media would punish the party for demanding a full count.

What now? Kerry won, so hold your victory party. But make sure the shades are down: it may be become illegal to demand a full vote count under PATRIOT Act III.

I used to write a column for the Guardian papers in London. Several friends have asked me if I will again leave the country. In light of the failure?-a second time?-to count all the votes, that won't be necessary. My country has left me.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 03:17 pm
I don't know about all that.

I thought it takes 11 days for the Ohio vote to be counted because of something called the provisional votes. I thought New Mexico went something like 50, 49, 1.

I think even if it was obvious that there was fraud going on, most democrats myself included, wouldn't want to mess with it. I just don't have it in me for any more of that kind of a thing.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 03:21 pm
Quote:
I just don't have it in me for any more of that kind of a thing.


That's too bad, because the Repugs will stop at nothing to cheat their way into a massive majority, one-party government. The Dems have become so overwhelmingly spineless that they cannot match their evil deeds.

Our elections process has changed so profoundly, it is easy to manipulate just about everything now.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 03:36 pm
It seems to me that if we want to avoid election fraud.....we should have a national standard for voting machines. It should be a method that provides a mechanism for proving the final outcome. How hard can this really be in this age of technology? It's a requirement for good science. If an outcome can't be replicated, it's suspect. Why do we not have a national standard for the states' voting methods? Leave it to the states, but require that it meet certain obvious standards.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 03:39 pm
I agree. It should be standardized across the country. I've voted on three different systems in three different states and some of them were none intuitive.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 07:18 pm
squinney wrote:
There were discrepencies between exit polls, registered voters vs. turnout,

Of course theres gonna be "discrepancies" between exit polls and actual results. Exit polls are polls.

squinney wrote:
questionable numbers of turnout in certain states, etc. Will be interesting to see the final tallies.

As I noted here yesterday, I crunched some numbers myself, and am surprised other sources haven't questioned some of the more obvious discrepencies. (Like why was California turnout down 10% from 2000, and Florida's and Arizona's up 25% and 35% respectively when other states had an average 15% increase in votes cast?)

Like Soz said, two out of those three are obvious. After last time's nightmare, of course Florida turnouts would be hugely up this time. This was the state that mattered, along with Ohio. This was where the candidates went, continually. And all this anger about their vote not counting last time, and making sure that this time would be different ... countered by conservative voters seeing the storm brewing and thinking they had to stop it, somehow ... that Florida's turnout was excessively high doesn't surprise me a bit.

Conversely, California was indeed a Kerry shoe-in. It was never contested this year. Neither candidate ever went there. The whole focus and coverage of the elections must have been less there than elsewhere.

This was different last time round. In a symbolic gesture of bravado, Rove in 2000 decided that it would make Bush seem a confident winner if they acted like California was winnable. So Bush went campaiging there and everything. California was considered contested, and thus people came out. Now there was really no need to.

squinney wrote:
I considered that about California, too. But, they still know the popular count matters.

But it doesnt <shrugs>. Not beyond a merely symbolic level, and apart from the more dutiful citizens and the most enthusiastic partisans, people are not going to massively turn out to cast a symbolic vote. A hundred thousand more Californians could have turned out and it wouldnt have made any difference whatsoever. I guess they knew that.

squinney wrote:
And, just the week before, their Govenor came out sounding more like a democrat than republican. Perhaps the whole voting thing has worn them out recently.

Possibly. And having a Republican Governor who sounds like a Democrat actually would dampen turnout - it makes the "enemy image", the Republican boogeyman Democrats elsewhere massively turned out against, less powerful a mobilising force.

squinney wrote:
Arizona was a HUGE surprise considering the number of articles recently about illegals entering and not having enough border patrols. If Bush can't get that under control in 3 years, why give him more time? We'll see.

Arizona is also a very conservative-minded state, and has been for a very long time. Kerry showed some real chutzpah to contest it initiatally, but it was always a long shot. Why turnout was so high there though I dont know. But there are a lot of things that can impact turnout. Close state races. A controversial ballot initiative that attracted a lot of attention. Stuff like that.

squinney wrote:
Won't start any conspiracy theories, but I certainly don't believe the 3 million votes went to Bush.

The very last thing we need is more wacko conspiracy theories. People went around talking of the Un-President and speculating about all kinds of different fraudy ways going on, and it just turned more people off. Engaging in more of that is a sure-fire way to prolong the self-isolation.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/16/2026 at 11:39:46