Kerry Won Heres the facts

by pat c Mon Nov 08, 2004 16:47

Three congressmen sent a letter to the General Accounting Office on Friday requesting an investigation into irregularities with voting machines used in Tuesday's elections.

The congressmen, Democratic members of the House of Representatives from Florida, New York and Michigan, cited a number of incidents that came to light in the days after the election. One was a glitch in Ohio that caused a memory card reader made by Danaher Controls to give George W. Bush 3,893 more votes than he should have received. Another was a problem with memory cards in North Carolina that caused machines made by UniLect to lose 4,500 votes cast on e-voting machines. The votes were lost when the number of votes cast on the machines exceeded the capacity of the memory cards.

There were also problems with machines that counted absentee ballots in Florida. Software made by Election Systems & Software began subtracting votes when totals surpassed 32,000. Officials said the problem affected only certain countywide races on one of the last pages of the ballot. Elections officials knew about the problem two years ago, but the company failed to fix the software before the election this year.

Full Story at:

by Merkin Mon Nov 08, 2004 16:57

All of this is being done to console Democrats and stopping them from focusing on what a piss poor candidate they had.
His concession speech said it all. Uninspiring.
Did they want to defeat Bush?

by pc Mon Nov 08, 2004 17:03

is if electronic voting isn't good enough for Ireland (and without a paper trail, it certainly isn't ) why is good enough for America.


Video the Vote
http://boingboing.net/
voter harrasment on polling day

by george washington Mon Nov 08, 2004 17:11

Why would computer errors tend to favour one candidate any more than another?

It is actually amusing to listen to leftists talking nonsense about fixing elections when the weight of historical evidence proves that it has been the left that has been far better at this than the right. In 1937 the Bolsheviks even took the trouble to fill out the ballot papers that were handed to voters just in case something went wrong with the count!! Then there's Cuba where there's only one party. Maybe you just can't handle the actual unpredicatability of elections people.....

by pijhgs Mon Nov 08, 2004 18:08

By 1937 I think everyone will agree the leaders of the USSR had well and truly sold out! They could hardly be described as 'leftists'!

It is a fact that in Ohio all third party candidates in many counties had their names blacked out on the ballot.

by george washington Mon Nov 08, 2004 18:35

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union were not leftists !! That is an unusual historical interpetation my friend.

Oh, and before you respond as you may by referring to Stalinism and if only poor old Trotsky hadn't taken power - democracy and dissent both within the CP and society in general had been fully suppressed by 1920.

The one common trait in ALL socialist socieities to date and there have been enough to make an assessment is that they do not tolerate democracy or civil society. Personnally I cannot abide Bush (or Kerry for that matter) but people do have a choice. Yes, US democracy is weighted in favour of wealth and so on but it is a hell of a lot better than Cuba or North Korea or Saudi Arabia.

by R. Isible Mon Nov 08, 2004 20:04

Note that Palast's figures still show that Bush won the popular vote: by a couple of million. It's farily obvious that the Republicans were out to distort and squeeze as much as they could by using crappy equipment in areas that were majority Latino or African-American. It's also fairly obvious that the Democratic Party was keen on spending tens of millions in order to undemocratically force Ralph Nader off the ballot instead of spending the money making sure that those African-American and Lation voters were given proper legal representation.

So, not much to worry about: the system is revealed clearly as a fraud and a sham: fake choices implemented through a falsifiable mechanism.

Time to "Move On!" and work for real change.

by Lone Gunman Mon Nov 08, 2004 21:35

Why did Kerry concede the election to Bush?When he had a 100 plus attorneys to argue the toss?Do you not think if there was ANY chance that this would be fought out like Florida in 2000?
Simple.51% of the USA thought GWB is the better man. GET OVER IT!!!

by Democrat Dan - US supporter Tue Nov 09, 2004 00:45

How Bush won the White House.
After last weeks US elections, many wise crackers wondered how long before the paranoid, conspiracy hacks where putting together their theories about how the republicans stole this election.
Not long, and also, disturbingly for the rest of the world , not so paranoid.
Already many US commentators are focusing on the huge discrepancy between exit polls in key states and the actual results. Even more distrubing and extremely hard to explain at this stage is that the discrepancy between these exit polls is more pronounced in states with no veriviable paper trail;ie who use e voting only. See full story below, taken from US web site.
Separately in Florida a huge discrepancy has been found in the percentages of registared Democrates Verus Rep as against the final result in a number of smaller counties.
It warrents more investigation, to say the least.
http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm
Published on Saturday, November 6, 2004 by CommonDreams.org

Evidence Mounts That The Vote Was Hacked

by Thom Hartmann



When I spoke with Jeff Fisher this morning (Saturday, November 06, 2004), the Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Florida's 16th District said he was waiting for the FBI to show up. Fisher has evidence, he says, not only that the Florida election was hacked, but of who hacked it and how. And not just this year, he said, but that these same people had previously hacked the Democratic primary race in 2002 so that Jeb Bush would not have to run against Janet Reno, who presented a real threat to Jeb, but instead against Bill McBride, who Jeb beat.

Article continues...

by george washington Tue Nov 09, 2004 09:55

Such as? How about taking Democratic Kampuchea as a model. You could move everyone out of the cities and get them growing rice along the Mississippi. Of course that would involve the murder of oh say 80 million unreliable elements but sure we'd all be happier in the end.

by Spitfire Mk III Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:46

Ohio is one of the few states still to use the old punched card machines which tend to produce high spoilage rates in poor / black / hispanic areas.

(Spoilage rates can be skewed by using different types of machines in different areas. Also in rich / white areas, voters may be sent back to vote again if their card is messed up, poor areas have no 'quality' checking)

Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida have arcane laws which allow election workers to stand at the polls and challenge the identity of potential voters (i.e. coloured ones), some get turned away but many are given provisional ballots, which aren't counted (except in the event of a tie)

More ...

by ;-) Tue Nov 09, 2004 13:06

"will they steal the next election as well?"

by George W B Tue Nov 09, 2004 13:34

What next election?

by Al Wed Nov 10, 2004 00:03

Folks,
America has not got a real democracy. The way the presidential elections work goes against one man/one vote. Why when a person gets 51% of Florida does he obtain all that states votes? I dont see the logic in it yet that is the way the system works. Because of this it also means that certain states will always go Republican or Democrat. The big states then become the only ones worth fighting for because the smaller states wont decide an election regardless of how popular one candidate is over another.
Tp put it another way, in Ireland if Bush got 51% of Dublin votes but Kerry got 49% of Dublin and all of Cork and Galway, Kerry would win. The American way would make Bush the winner bacuse due to the population size of Dublin it would carry more 'votes' than Cork and Galway put together despite the fact that overall Kerry recieved more individual votes.
Its not a fair system, its not a democratic system which is strange considering America considers itself the overseer of the world and brings 'democracy' to the poor poor souls in Vietnam and Iraq.
Bush getting back in makes me glad that North Korea and Iraq arent allowed have nuclear weapons, I feel much safer knowing that Bush controls the only really big bombs!

by Julia Wed Nov 10, 2004 00:59 Clonakilty

(If you recognise this piece, it is because I posted it last week in another thread. That thread has since been deleted)
I believe the election reveals a division in the US which is possibly as deep as it has been since the American civil war. On the anti-Bush side I believe there are millions of people who are disturbed by what the man stands for. To put it more simply, the US may have a clear winner in the election, but American opinion is far from being united.
I am a deeply committed democrat, but I find the suggestion distasteful that the American voters have spoken, and we and they must all respect the outcome.
Why? The thinking of the average US voter is open to the same influences that affect the average voter anywhere. And what is the greatest / most powerful influence? The media, I would argue. And in the US, the writing by most of the so-called heavy weight journalists can fairly and properly be denounced as advertising for one party or the other. And the republicans successfully targeted the vast majority of the opinion-forming journalists. This is information that has been in the public domain since the first months after the 2000 election.
It is naive to stick to the safe formula of accepting the election result at face value. It suggests that to be a democrat, we must accept that a majority vote equals the wishes of the majority. I think most American people are smarter than that. What is disturbing is that, like the qualified majority of Irish voters who put Charles Haughey in power three times, so many Americans actually believe in Bush.

by R. Isible Wed Nov 10, 2004 01:04

QUOTE: America has not got a real democracy. The way the presidential elections work goes against one man/one vote. Why when a person gets 51% of Florida does he obtain all that states votes? I dont see the logic in it yet that is the way the system works



The logic is that there will be a restraint on mob rule which is what simple majority voting is argued to result in. It was introduced to protect the rich slave owners against the mob.

It can be argued that this means that the winning candidate has to obtain some sort of consensus which is fairer than just getting a majority because they have to appeal to multiple constituencies.

But Ireland doesn't have a democracy either. It's a representative democracy using a single-transferable vote.

A _real_ democracy wouldn't involve "representatives" that are non-recallable and non-mandatable.

Neither the USA nor Ireland can claim to be a democracy.

by Tony Wed Nov 10, 2004 01:36

Quote: Neither the USA nor Ireland can claim to be a democracy.



Just for balance, Riso, or anyone else on this point - that probably would not have arisen had Kerry won , name any Country that can claim to be a democracy and explain how it works.

by pc Thu Nov 11, 2004 16:24

long streaming video from msnbc? no longer a perserve of the tinfoil hat wearers? Homeland Security alerts close vote count to public More votes the voters in 29 counties in Ohio etc etc

by Dermo Thu Nov 11, 2004 23:11

Well you can get into any amount of semantics about democracy. You have to talk about degrees of democracy, because otherwise your just looking for an abstract concept with no basis in reality. The sad fact is that the majority of voters chose Bush and that is a far more worrying problem than a faulty ballot machine. Anyway, the democrats have no better a track record than the republicans it would have made little difference who won.

by Barry Thu Nov 11, 2004 23:35

I think people are overlooking the fact that Kerry was genuinely WEIRD and even creepy at times when on TV. Also theres the idiot factor. George Bush is an idiot, so are the majority of Americans. Unsurprisingly they identified more with the idiot than the creepy weirdo, so the idiot won.
This whole re-election has been picked over more times than a downed Black-Hawk on a Fallujah rubbish tip, and none of it makes any difference. Evey 4 years corporate America has an each-way bet on who gets into the white-house and they NEVER lose. It makes no difference which one wins.

by pat c Wed Nov 17, 2004 12:41

Vote Recount to Settle Doubts?

A vote recount in New Hampshire on Thursday could shed light on anomalies with election results in that state, voting activists say. And if the recount finds problems with voting machines there, it could open the way for recounts in other states, such as Florida.

Presidential candidate Ralph Nader requested the recount, which will include only a small percentage of voting districts in the state where anomalies appeared in the election results. New Hampshire uses a combination of traditional paper ballots and optical-scan machines -- where voters mark a paper ballot with a pen before officials scan it through an electronic infrared reader. The anomalies occurred mostly in districts that used optical-scan machines.

Nader spokesman Kevin Zeese said the campaign was closing up shop and paying off its debts when it received several requests to look at data from a number of New Hampshire voting districts. "There was enough to it that made it worthwhile to at least check it out," he said.

Full story at:

by MW Wed Nov 24, 2004 17:35

TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) -- A federal judge denied a request by third-party presidential candidates who wanted to force a recount of Ohio ballots even before the official count was finished.

Judge James G. Carr in Toledo ruled Tuesday that the candidates have a right under Ohio law to a recount, but said it can wait. The judge wrote that he saw no reason to interfere with the final stages of Ohio's electoral process. Officials have said the results will be certified by December 6.

The lawsuit by Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb and Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik had asked Carr to issue an order requiring Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell to immediately begin a statewide recount of November 2 voting results.

The candidates received a combined 0.26 percent of the vote in unofficial results. But they contend a recount is necessary to ensure accuracy.

President Bush led Democrat John Kerry by 136,000 votes in the unofficial count, and Kerry conceded that there were not enough provisional ballots to change the outcome. But Kerry supporters have made numerous claims of voting irregularities in Ohio.

The two candidates have said they raised more than $150,000 to cover the state's fee for a recount. Ohio law requires payment of $10 per precinct, or $113,600 statewide, but election officials say the true expense would be far greater.

by redjade Wed Nov 24, 2004 22:15

and we thought they were kidding during the election when they had people sign loyalty oaths in order to see Bush and Cheney at a campaign rally...

well, they have more in mind than that, and it's all corporate sponsored....


----

Mysterious ‘George W. Bush: Our leader’ Clear Channel political public service billboard graces Orlando freeway
http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=442

'' A billboard recently put up in Orlando bearing a smiling photograph of President Bush with the words “Our Leader” is raising eyebrows among progressives who feel the poster is akin to that of propaganda used by tyrannical regimes.

RAW STORY confirmed the billboard’s existence Monday evening. The billboard pictured, which is on I-4, says that it is a “political public service message brought to you by Clear Channel Outdoor.” ''

by Like a bad . . . . . . . or ireland under chertie Wed Nov 24, 2004 22:24

.

by redjade Fri Nov 26, 2004 16:43

more photos at
http://www.cardhouse.com/travel/az/billboards/billboards.htm