WHO WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER?

Foxfyre wrote:

And apparently even the Australian system touted as an example of how to prevent voter fraud isn't immune to it:

LOOK HERE

You are a joke, Fox.

My point was that Americans in every election I have been around here for moan and whinge about how the election wasn't fair, the machines didn't work/were crooked/your moan re ballot papers/the moan de jour.

Either your system is fair or it isn't.

If it isn't, why the heck don't you learn from other countries and FIX IT?

My point was not that fraud will not ever exist in other western democracies, it was that, seemingly, most comparable countries generally have a faith in their electoral processes that you guys do not...unless you and the other complainers do not actually believe in your own complaints?

My country, for instance, has an electoral commission in every state. I have NEVER heard of there not being enough ballot papers etc.

We do not have machines that a sizeable group of the population do not trust.

If a ballot is disputed, the ballot papers can be recounted.

If someone alleges fraud, there seems generally to be confidence that there will be a fair umpire decision.

YOU are the one who was moaning this time.

If you think your system is ok, then quit moaning.

I might not like the way elections go in this country from time to time, but I have a trust that the system is fair.

You guys are the ones who make us think your system isn't ok..eg your moan that the Democrat hired workers were too dumb to ensure a reasonable supply of ballot papers and the ongoing doubts about the machines from both sides, now, one notes, as soon as an election went against your lot.

Then, when your own moans are commenterd upon, you guys get in a frenzy of defensiveness.

Sheesh.

Fix your system, or shut up. You can't moan AND declare you have the best system in the world.

0 Replies

I'm just saying that I did indeed notice the reports about irregularities, problems with voting machines etc. in virtually every US election I've been following.

Something I did not notice in each and every election in other western countries. I'm not denying that problems may exist, and that would obviously be another interesting discussion.

<shrugs>

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Fix your system, or shut up. You can't moan AND declare you have the best system in the world.

They prove that they can. :wink:

But you are correct, Deb. I've been in various election commitees since about 30 years now.
I've never heard that people were send away from polling stations or that there wasn't enough ballot paper or ...

We had had some really obscure incidents here, though, e.g. in one village in our state the polling committee just went to bed because they couldn't "arrange" to get a result within one hours - and their result was being missed for the whole evening until someone noticed the why Laughing

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

well if you want to reserve this thread for your argument with old europe, go right ahead. waste of time.

If you are going to be offended after jumping into the middle of a conversation and making conclusions based on what you think you are reading, feel free to keep your nose out of it. I'd hate to waste your time.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Fix your system, or shut up. You can't moan AND declare you have the best system in the world.

Pretty much.

FWIW, I too am time and again baffled that there should be such seemingly enormous problems with voting in what is, after all, the richest country of the world.

I mean, I'm from Holland - small country for sure, but no less populous than some individual US State. I have never had to wait longer than 10 minutes to cast my vote. I have never heard from anybody who had to wait longer than 10 minutes to cast his vote. Lines of people waiting for two hours to vote? In the world's most powerful country?

There has never been any serious discussion of voter fraud. The trust in the voting system is so anonymous, that nobody even made the transition from paper ballots to voting machines, which has been rolled out over the past 10 years, into an issue of political debate. Even though there is no paper trail. You can wonder if that isnt all too gullible, but you can also see it as a sign that nobody's seen much reason to suspect that there would be voter fraud. When last month - with national elections coming up Nov 22 - there turned out to be a privacy problem with voting machines in Amsterdam and a few other towns, which is forcing them to return to paper ballots, it came as a completely new subject.

There is none of the bewildering diversity of ballot systems you have. In one district, paper, in another, Diebold voting machines, in a third, other voting machines, in a fourth, butterfly ballots, etc, each increasing the confusion. The resources of a local ballot station do not depend on whether the town in question is rich or poor.

I mean - for sure problems might occur anywhere - especially with these voting machines. One glitch and you're f*cked. And I'm not even gonna talk about Hungary. But the sheer scale and variety of problems you have is just so surprising! I dont understand - the richest, most powerful country in the world doesnt bother funding or organising the very basis of its system, free elections, properly or effectively?

It just seems odd.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Then you haven't been paying attention to my point. Go back through the thread to Old europes statement that I took offense to.

I did..

What he said, literally, was that these voting "irregularities last night" were "not something people are used to in most other western countries".

He didnt say that NO voting irregularity EVER happened in ANY Western country.

Just that we're not used to it. Its high exception - as you unwittingly showed yourself when, trying to come up with examples, you ended up posting about the Ukraine and Azerbajjan (Western countries, right).

Whereas in the US, every single elections, these stories are just myriad.

Its a pretty straightforward observation to make - its just surprising to us, I guess - hardly the kind of thing that warrants saying someone is "on the dope again".

I mean, I know you must be in a bad mood, but jeez..

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

the combined negatives of impotence on illegal immigration, [etc] did them in.

Actually, the candidates who made illegal immigration a central part of their campaign seem to have mostly bombed.

Randy Graf. Mac Collins. J.D. Hayworth. All candidates who actually did make a big deal of how Congress should stop being so impotent on illegal immigration, how it should act decisively, clamp down. All lost - and in the case of Hayworth, in spectacularly unexpected fashion. See here.

In fact, conservative pundit Hugh Hewitt at Townhall is even writing: "The anti-illegal immigration absolutists got their heads handed to them. As the fence goes up, their rhetoric must go down--dramatically."

Foxfyre wrote:

I go with the post mortem offered by the Washington Post, nobody's idea of a conservative media outlet. They said today that the Democrats didn't serve to win--they offered virtually nothing to the electorate other than the fact they are not Republicans--but that the Republicans deserved to lose.

Emphasis added. Fact check - the WaPo wrote:

"Less clear is that Democrats deserved to win -- or that they would have done so absent Republican missteps. The Democrats won the House [..], but not because voters necessarily agreed with their program. How many voters, we wonder, could name even one of the Democrats' vaunted "Six for '06" legislative proposals?"

0 Replies

Quote:

Almost all serious historians agree that the shenanigans of Democrat bosses stole the 1960 presidential election for John Kennedy. The risk to America, however, was slight. John Kennedy was an imperfect man but a decent president, certainly a patriot and someone who sought to inspire American greatness, whether it was in defending freedom or in landing on the Moon.

I love the "all serious historians" statement. Quite funny.

Which historians are serious enough to claim Kennedy must have stole the 1960 election? There were recounts and court battles. Any "serious historian" should be well aware of those recounts and court rulings.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Then you haven't been paying attention to my point. Go back through the thread to Old europes statement that I took offense to.

I did..

What he said, literally, was that these voting "irregularities last night" were "not something people are used to in most other western countries".

He didnt say that NO voting irregularity EVER happened in ANY Western country.

Just that we're not used to it. Its high exception - as you unwittingly showed yourself when, trying to come up with examples, you ended up posting about the Ukraine and Azerbajjan (Western countries, right).

Whereas in the US, every single elections, these stories are just myriad.

Its a pretty straightforward observation to make - its just surprising to us, I guess - hardly the kind of thing that warrants saying someone is "on the dope again".

I mean, I know you must be in a bad mood, but jeez..

How many western countries with 300 million people hold elections every year Nimh?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

How many western countries with 300 million people hold elections every year Nimh?

And what exactly is the problem with the fact that the population of all US states get to vote at the same time, whereas e.g. the 450 million people of the EU rather vote in regional or national elections? Is Virginia or Florida or Ohio more prone to irregularities when its population gets to vote at the same time as people in other states do?

Your argument might hold some water if US elections where centrally organized. They are not, though, and it does not.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Lines of people waiting for two hours to vote? In the world's most powerful country?

That is completely inaccurate . . .

. . . i had to wait three and a half hours to vote in 2004 . . .

0 Replies

I voted by absentee ballot, and had no waiting. Wink

0 Replies

Some have alleged that a large majority of dead voters voted for Democrats.

Unfortunately, we don't have any exit poll data to support or deny this allegation.

:wink:

0 Replies

When repbulicans won in 2004, we heard stories that not only dead people voted for the republican candidates, but also infants voted for them.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Some have alleged that a large majority of dead voters voted for Democrats.

Unfortunately, we don't have any exit poll data to support or deny this allegation.

:wink:

OK that got a chuckle from me :wink:

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

How many western countries with 300 million people hold elections every year Nimh?

apparently "practice makes perfect" doesn't apply to the U.S.

<shrug>

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Some have alleged that a large majority of dead voters voted for Democrats.

Unfortunately, we don't have any exit poll data to support or deny this allegation.

:wink:

Snort.

Well, if your dead are livelier than your living when it comes to voting how can one cavil?

0 Replies

In my opinion the problem would be solved if we had a national identity card. That however, is for reasons not clear to me, an unacceptable solution.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
And apparently even the Australian system touted as an example of how to prevent voter fraud isn't immune to it:

LOOK HERE

You are a joke, Fox.
... ... ...
Fix your system, or shut up. You can't moan AND declare you have the best system in the world.

Quoting from today's Albuquerque Journal (not sure if it's online as well):

Quote:

About 100 election workers continued to tally 4,580 ballots by hand Wednesday at the warehouse, near Interstate 25 and Montaño NW.
And after that is finished, they still have another 3,800 provisional and "in-lieu-of" absentee ballots to examine. They will start counting those today, and County Clerk Mary Herrerra estimated it would take two days.

We count - that's the average in the polling station I work - about 1,000 ballots in 30 - 40 minutes, with not just two but to 15 and more parties.
Provisional ballots are included. That's done by the two shifts of poll workers: about 12 persons altogether.

I really think, you should either change the system or stop complaining.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

dlowan wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
And apparently even the Australian system touted as an example of how to prevent voter fraud isn't immune to it:

LOOK HERE

You are a joke, Fox.
... ... ...
Fix your system, or shut up. You can't moan AND declare you have the best system in the world.

Quoting from today's Albuquerque Journal (not sure if it's online as well):

Quote:
About 100 election workers continued to tally 4,580 ballots by hand Wednesday at the warehouse, near Interstate 25 and Montaño NW.
And after that is finished, they still have another 3,800 provisional and "in-lieu-of" absentee ballots to examine. They will start counting those today, and County Clerk Mary Herrerra estimated it would take two days.

We count - that's the average in the polling station I work - about 1,000 ballots in 30 - 40 minutes, with not just two but to 15 and more parties.
Provisional ballots are included. That's done by the two shifts of poll workers: about 12 persons altogether.

I really think, you should either change the system or stop complaining.

Oh really? What power do you personally have to change a system that you don't like in your country? And if you have no power to change it, does that mean you won't complain?

I certainly did not vote for the person in charge of counting those ballots but enough people did that she was re-elected. It's hard to break the through the majority in this state which is heavily Democrat. Even Heather Wilson, my (GOP) congresswoman, is still hanging in the balance on those remaining ballots to be counted and she was running against a candidate who ran the world's worst campaign and is probably the most inept campaigner that has ever run for that position.

0 Replies

WHO WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know