|
| Thread: How To Steal an Election: Part Two |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
csarmi
Supreme Hero
gets back
|
posted November 07, 2004 04:21 PM |
|
|
What is this registered democrat voter thing and how does it work?
Do you have the statistical data you mention available? (exit polls anywhere, exit polls by optical scanners, results anywhere, results by optical scanners)
Actual, reliable data linked here if possible.
|
|
csarmi
Supreme Hero
gets back
|
|
posted November 07, 2004 04:24 PM |
|
|
Englishman talking about flawed system LMAO.
As far as I know you choose between candidates (no party lists anywhere) in every single district. So a party getting like 30% of all the votes can well take all the seats in the parliament. That's what I call fair :-))
|
|
Laelth
Famous Hero
Laelth rhymes with stealth.
|
|
posted November 07, 2004 05:04 PM |
|
|
csarmi:
No, I don't have the links to the exit polls. The networks and the AP tried to hide the data when they saw that it didn't fit well with the election's results. But I saw it with my own eyes, and so did a lot of other Americans. Here's the quote from an earlier essay, again:
Quote:
Dick Morris, the infamous political consultant to the first Clinton campaign who became a Republican consultant and Fox News regular, wrote an article for The Hill, the publication read by every political junkie in Washington, DC, in which he made a couple of brilliant points.
"Exit Polls are almost never wrong," Morris wrote. "They eliminate the two major potential fallacies in survey research by correctly separating actual voters from those who pretend they will cast ballots but never do and by substituting actual observation for guesswork in judging the relative turnout of different parts of the state."
He added: "So, according to ABC-TVs exit polls, for example, Kerry was slated to carry Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and Iowa, all of which Bush carried. The only swing state the network had going to Bush was West Virginia, which the president won by 10 points."
Yet a few hours after the exit polls were showing a clear Kerry sweep, as the computerized vote numbers began to come in from the various states the election was called for Bush.
Party registration is another indicator that's being used to question the election results, but it's a less-reliable indicator. People who are "registered" Democrats usually vote for the Democratic candidate. But not always, and party registration data is not a sufficient basis for demanding a recount. I wouldn't worry about that. But if Nader can get a recount in New Hampshire and show that the actual votes do not match the reported vote tallys on New Hampshire's optical-scan machines, then this could be sufficient basis to ask for a manual recount in all the counties (across the nation) where these machines were used.
PH:
Your responses confuse me. I am trying to be very polite here. I'm not accusing anyone of fraud, just laying out the data I've seen (which might suggest fraud) and saying that if there was fraud, something should be done about it. Am I, as you derisively suggest, "repeatedly implying" that there was fraud. Maybe. But so what? Should I not make this data available to those who are interested in seeing it?
Ultimately, you've answered that question. You think that I, and those like me, who want this issue investigated should just "shut up." You're entitled to your opinion on that subject. I disagree. I feel compelled to protect the democratic processes in my nation.
Your principal reasons for wanting me to "shut up" seem to be that 1) Democrats are equally guilty and that 2) the "integrity" of democracy is best protected when people don't question the democratic process. I disagree, on both points. At one time, the Democratic party (concentrated in the big cities of the U. S.) was completely corrupt. Tamany Hall in New York controlled the democratic vote for many years. This is no longer the case. New York City now has a Republican Mayor. The Tamany Hall machine no longer exists. The Daley family still controls Chicago, but there's no evidence there that the vote in Illinois is rigged any longer. If there were evidence of that, the Republicans would be screaming their heads off. But honestly, even if these machines were still in place, Illinois and New York would have still voted for the Democrats. It wouldn't have changed the results of the election. This time, like 2000 and 2002 we think that the result may have been affected by fraud, and some people believe that it's worth fighting over. Four more years of George Bush, in complete control of the U. S. government, is a frightening prospect for me and much of the world.
Again, nothing may come of this. It looks like the Democrats do not intend to pursue it (with the exception of a single Democratic congressional candidate in Florida who's already contacted the FBI). On the other hand, there are 55 million of us (if not more) who voted for Kerry, and we are quite tired of rolling over and playing dead.
-Laelth
____________
Alan P. Taylor, Attorney at Law, LLC
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 07, 2004 05:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
How many times can I say this? If Democrats were guilty of subverting the election process, I'd say jail them!
And no one is objecting to that part of what you're saying. I say jail them too, fraud is a crime after all.
Quote:
When I suggest that Republicans, however, may have been trying to subvert the process, you tell me I'm being a sore loser and whining about losing? You're basically just saying the same old thing. "Shut up and get over it." You confirm my worst suspicions about Republicans. You care nothing about democracy. It's all about winning to you. If your party cared about democracy, they would not object to a recount.
"...my worst suspicions about Republicans..." Listen to you, that's ridiculous. Winning is important, if it wasn't you wouldn't be making a big deal of this, would you? Of course my party believes in democracy, winning by over 3.5 million votes is no small feat.
Quote:
Why object? Everyone's vote should be counted, right?
Because it takes time, money, and an emotional toll on the country. What happened in 2000? A large percentage of the country, and the world for that matter, just wanted there to be a winner and have the whole thing over.
Quote:
I can assure you the Republicans will resist any and all recount efforts ... and you know I'm right. It's shameful.
No, what's shameful is the fact that Democrats can't take the fact that they lost, fair and square. So they have to launch some huge investigation that drains on the American collective psyche. It's a waste of time, Bush won and no amount of litigation is going to change that.
Quote:
I feel compelled to protect the democratic processes in my nation.
By legthy litigation and miles of red tape? Sounds like a plan to me! 
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 07, 2004 05:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Am I, as you derisively suggest, "repeatedly implying" that there was fraud. Maybe. But so what? Should I not make this data available to those who are interested in seeing it?
"how to steal an election part two" Implies to me that you assume the fraud is the deliberate act of subversion of the results by Bush and co.
Quote:
Ultimately, you've answered that question. You think that I, and those like me, who want this issue investigated should just "shut up." You're entitled to your opinion on that subject. I disagree. I feel compelled to protect the democratic processes in my nation.
No, I think that the system should be investigated overall and altered where needs be, but the overall result should not be questioned without excellent proof that it was swayed either way on purpose, which so far I have not seen. Anything else is simply sour grapes and makes the democrats (if not the party then members) look like poor loosers. I'd rather spend my time and money ensuring that the Republicans don't win the next election than waste it complaining about them winning this one.
I don't want him to win as much as the next left wing person, but I place my priorities on changing the country and system elsewhere. I see no point in dragging the results out for months on the offchance that one or two results may have been flawed. I'm not a sore looser, I'll oppose the guy every time I think he screws something up, but I won't waste my time whining about something I can't change, and even if I could would probably not change the result significantly anyway.
Quote:
As far as I know you choose between candidates (no party lists anywhere) in every single district. So a party getting like 30% of all the votes can well take all the seats in the parliament. That's what I call fair :-))
And you consider a few million people in most states having their vote for president discounted completely simply because they did not get the majority in the state to be "fair" then do you?
And you're wrong, in 1997 was about the closest to that when it took Blair getting 40% of the vote to win 60% of the seats (roughly). Do yourself a favour and look into the system before you criticise it. British democracy is IMO far from perfect, but that doesn't mean I can't point out flaws in another democracy if I see them.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
bjorn190
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
|
|
posted November 07, 2004 05:32 PM |
|
|
I think we all know that Leath is biased for the democrats and wolfman for the republicans.
What we do know is that in a place in Ohio where there were just ~700 voters, kerry got 200 votes and bush 4000 O_o
Also we have no way to know if the machines work or not. Since one broke down and there has so far been no independant investigation, we can only assume that the rest of the machines work the same way as the one we know for a fact gave bush a 800% increase in votes.
Scary when the greatest power in the world is ruled by un-proven numbers on computers. Still, let's see how it goes. History will be the judge.
|
|
Laelth
Famous Hero
Laelth rhymes with stealth.
|
|
posted November 07, 2004 05:54 PM |
|
|
PH:
Quote:
"how to steal an election part two" Implies to me that you assume the fraud is the deliberate act of subversion of the results by Bush and co.
I started this thread before the election, fully expecting it to be stolen, yes. Nevertheless, I've leveled no direct accusations of fraud, because I can't. It's not my job, and I don't have access to the data. Right now, all I can even do is beg people to be open-minded, accept the possiblitity that there might have been fraud, and then suggest that if there is evidence of fraud that it should be investigated. That's all.
Quote:
I think that the system should be investigated ... I place my priorities on changing the country and system elsewhere.
Perhaps this is where I am not explaining myself clearly to you. If there was fraud on the part of Republicans, the system will not be reformed. There's no incentive for them to reform the system that allows them to cheat and win (if that's what happened). And Democrats have no power, whatsoever, to change anything if these election results stand.
Wolfman:
Quote:
And no one is objecting to that part of what you're saying. I say jail them too, fraud is a crime after all.
I am deeply impressed. Looks like you're young enough that you're still educable. Your mind has not been completely warped by right-wing hate radio and Fox News. Good for you. 
Quote:
Because it takes time, money, and an emotional toll on the country. What happened in 2000? A large percentage of the country, and the world for that matter, just wanted there to be a winner and have the whole thing over.
Hmm ... I'll be hopeful, here, and try to share what I know with you. Bush's margin of victory in 2000 in Florida was so close that Gore was entitled (by law) to a recount, right? So, he asked for one. The process went to the courts because Republicans sued to stop the recount to which Gore was entitled by law. And they continued litigating all the way up to the Supreme Court. The recount would and could have been done very quickly if Bush hadn't sued to stop the recount from happening. Here, again, recounts can be done quickly and relatively cheaply (the candidate who's asking for the recount usually has to pay for it). Instead, I suspect the Republicans will take the matter to court again to prevent a recount (if it ever gets that far).
Quote:
what's shameful is the fact that Democrats can't take the fact that they lost, fair and square.
I've seen a lot of Democrats lose elections in my time, young one, and we take it just fine when it's fair. 2000 was different, and this one might be too. We'll see.
-Laelth
____________
Alan P. Taylor, Attorney at Law, LLC
|
|
csarmi
Supreme Hero
gets back
|
|
posted November 07, 2004 07:44 PM |
|
Edited By: csarmi on 7 Nov 2004
|
Hey, hey don't feel so attacked!
I don't know how good USA president election system is (I find it a fair trade between state and population representation).
But in your system all the people's who did not vote for the winner in a district (that can be as high as even 60-70%, mathematically unlimited) is lost forever.
So 60% of your voters were there for no good...
In Hungary we choose between lists of parties too (and the votes that would be lost in a disctrict are calculated in elsewhere too, called liste de compensation).
Anyways we have the same system (we vote on paper though only) - the votes can be recount too.
In 2002 there was a big debate too, the conservative party lost the elections (even though before(! - not exit) the polls showed 10% lead for them). The left sided won and the conservatives (completely without foundation) questioned - and still question - the results.
(and wanted recount when there was nothing that could have been reasonably recounted, the particulaire results in districts were normally not close and the party list vote system is very "stable" - I mean if one party gets 1% more votes, he still gets the same number of seats)
Laelth, I am a mathematician and I know statistics quite well, if the things claimed to be are really so, it's very harsh and should imply consequences. But there can be several factos we do not know yet (some results not included there etc) AND we can come to different conclusions too (for example the scanning program is simply flawed some way etc...).
But without bases, these are only "hanging in the air", these are only frames, insinuations - sorry I don't really know the appropriate english words.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 07, 2004 08:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But in your system all the people's who did not vote for the winner in a district (that can be as high as even 60-70%, mathematically unlimited) is lost forever.
That's usually very few people anyway though. The only way that percentage could be ignored if there is a split evenly between a number of parties. Our areas are small and never reach more than a few hundred thousand at most IIRC, so the number "ignored" is less than the states. Realistically it's rarely that high, closer to 25-40% per seat. So I'd appreciate you not taking the extreme and assuming it is the norm, because theory is not the same as in practice.
We do use the proportional system in some elections but it generally speaking is not favoured here especially amongst the parties in power. It's not seen as that much better or worse than our current system to be frank.
Quote:
Right now, all I can even do is beg people to be open-minded, accept the possiblitity that there might have been fraud, and then suggest that if there is evidence of fraud that it should be investigated. That's all.
That's your choice, I say move on with our lives and politics and use realistic means of getting something done about it. Very few Americans I spoke to want the election results dragged through the courts forever and ever just to define who won. In the end everyone looses and the reputation of US democracy takes a beating. I'm more than aware it won't be reformed, and frankly I'm quite aware that all this complaining about the system is pointless also. That's precisely why I'd rather spend time and energy doing something that might stand a realistic chance of removing the Republicans sometime soon than waste my time with sour grapes. My choice, I prefer something realistic to something unlikely to do anything other than tarnish the reputation of the country and still leave Bush and co in power.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
csarmi
Supreme Hero
gets back
|
|
posted November 07, 2004 08:37 PM |
|
|
I don't want to sound like I know the system perfectly (I am positive I know it much better you'd ever imagine though).
What I claim is that the people who vote for the losers (that's normally between 40-60% there if I recall - sorry if my numbers are a bit off - but can be much higher) were there for no good. They'd might as well stayed home.
Last time I checked it was even decided in one round...
Hard to imagine a system more unjust, more irrepresentative and more biased against small parties.
Still it works suprisingly well.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 07, 2004 09:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What I claim is that the people who vote for the losers (that's normally between 40-60% there if I recall - sorry if my numbers are a bit off - but can be much higher) were there for no good. They'd might as well stayed home.
Depends on what percentage the victors get. Like I said, the number of people "ignored" in this way is small compared to the presedential vote in the states.
Quote:
Last time I checked it was even decided in one round...
Yes it is, we like it that way. Only elections that tend to go into more than 1 round are political leadership elections.
Quote:
Hard to imagine a system more unjust, more irrepresentative and more biased against small parties.
It's hardly either unjust or unrepresentative. It's seen as a trade off against the problems coallitions tend to bring. Some prefer proportional representation, some don't, most quite like first past the post. As I said, other elections here do not use this system of voting.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 07, 2004 09:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I've just heard a rumor that's very frightening. What I heard is that Karl Rove, Bush's long-time friend and Chief Election Strategist, plans to contest every single state that's even remotely close in the 2004 election
Multiple choice:
A) It's frightening if it benefits either Republicans or Democrats.
B) It's frightening if it benefits Republicans, but not Democrats.
C) It's frightening if it benefits Democrats, but not Republicans.
D) It's not frightening in either case.
If I'm understanding this thread right, it's frightening if the Republicans contest the election, but now that the election results are in, it's suddenly of utmost importance to contest it.
____________
|
|
Laelth
Famous Hero
Laelth rhymes with stealth.
|
|
posted November 07, 2004 11:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If I'm understanding this thread right, it's frightening if the Republicans contest the election, but now that the election results are in, it's suddenly of utmost importance to contest it.
LOL! Yes, obviously I should have started a new thread.
Turns out Bush didn't need the state legislatures of Ohio and Florida to hand him the victory. Perhaps the machines gave it to him instead. If the Democrats contest this election, that won't change the fact that Republican legislators in Florida and Ohio could still give their electoral votes to Bush, regardless of whether there's a recount. Thanks for reminding me.
PH:
Quote:
I'd rather spend time and energy doing something that might stand a realistic chance of removing the Republicans sometime soon than waste my time with sour grapes. My choice, I prefer something realistic to something unlikely to do anything other than tarnish the reputation of the country and still leave Bush and co in power.
So glad you're willing to help out. The Democrats need all the ideas they can get along those lines. Go HERE, get signed up, and try to help out. Frankly, I'm at a loss. The Republican media machine has effectively labeled the Democratic party the "liberal-loser-whiney-wimp" party, and whether we fight or roll over and play dead, we still can't shake that image. Nothing we can do about it because the Republicans control the media. Unless something really drastic happens, we're looking at a long stretch of one-party rule in the U. S. So, please feel free to help. We need all the advice we can get.
-Laelth
____________
Alan P. Taylor, Attorney at Law, LLC
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 07, 2004 11:23 PM |
|
|
[quote
That's your choice, I say move on with our lives and politics and use realistic means of getting something done about it. Very few Americans I spoke to want the election results dragged through the courts forever and ever just to define who won. In the end everyone looses and the reputation of US democracy takes a beating. I'm more than aware it won't be reformed, and frankly I'm quite aware that all this complaining about the system is pointless also. That's precisely why I'd rather spend time and energy doing something that might stand a realistic chance of removing the Republicans sometime soon than waste my time with sour grapes. My choice, I prefer something realistic to something unlikely to do anything other than tarnish the reputation of the country and still leave Bush and co in power.
Well PH, its a good thing Martin Luther King didnt say that, or for that matter Gandhi, shall I continue?
Its dangerous for a democracy if a minority just roll over and play dead. Simply because of the odd chance that a majority in a country might be wrong. And in this case it might even be, that the majority is right, and the minority wrong. The majority just doesnt know they are the majority.
Well Im not implying anything here, just saying that this is precisely the reason that I will always support consensus rule. Unfortunately consensus in many countries means flip-flopping and horse-trading, instead of good politics that try to give everybody a fair say.
Just my 2 cents.
Regards
Defreni
____________
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 07, 2004 11:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The Republican media machine…
…because the Republicans control the media.
LOL! I don’t think I’ve ever laughed so hard at anything you’ve posted before. The “Republican media”, you’re so funny. You were joking, right?
I realize the radio is mainly conservative, since liberals can’t keep their ratings up. But that’s their problem so they can’t complain.
ABC, CBS (especially CBS), NBC to a degree, CNN (Clinton News Network ), all have a slant to the left.
Quote:
I am deeply impressed. Looks like you're young enough that you're still educable. Your mind has not been completely warped by right-wing hate radio and Fox News. Good for you.
Quote:
I've seen a lot of Democrats lose elections in my time, young one, and we take it just fine when it's fair.
I like the cracks at my age, that’s a nice touch, but completely irrelevant. You think my mind is the one that’s warped…that’s a good one.
Quote:
I've seen a lot of Democrats lose elections in my time…
And you’ll continue to…
I’ve noticed over the years that liberals often hide behind labels for their opponents instead of treating them with respect. I believe stupid and crazy are popular ones. Now, I must be wrong since I’m young, that’s what you seem to imply. Since I’m young, I guess I just haven’t had time to be as “enlightened” as you are. That was a joke, feel free to insert you’re word, “warped” in place of “enlightened”. It’ll make the sentence more true.
____________
|
|
Laelth
Famous Hero
Laelth rhymes with stealth.
|
|
posted November 08, 2004 12:59 AM |
|
Edited By: Laelth on 7 Nov 2004
|
Wolfie:
Quote:
And you’ll continue to… (see a lot of Democrats lose)
Gloating is childish, and if you continue to gloat, I'll continue to point out that you're being childish.
And you're wrong about the media (both TV and radio are more conservative than they've ever been). But, of course, there's no way for me to convince you of that, so I shall not try.
Do you have something constructive to add to this discussion?
-Laelth
Edit:Laelth--spelling & clarity.
____________
Alan P. Taylor, Attorney at Law, LLC
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2004 01:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
LOL! Yes, obviously I should have started a new thread.
I'm glad to see the smile, I was afraid it might be otherwise. And if you started a second thread I would have still quoted it.
Quote:
What is this registered democrat voter thing and how does it work?
When a person registers to vote, they can choose a party affiliation if they want. This allows them to vote in the primary election for their party. (ie registered Republicans vote for who the Republican candidate will be and Democrats vote for the Democratic candidate.) Kerry was the Dem candidate because he got the most votes from registered Democrats in the primary. It's "sort of" a two tiered system with the winners of the primary facing off in November.
Being registered with a party doesn't necessarily mean you support that party. It only means that you have chosen to vote in that party's primary. In practice, probably 99%+ are registered with the party they actually support.
Unless it's been overturned in the courts, in California a "neutral" person not registerd with any party can still vote in the primary. When they go to vote, they declair at that time which party's primary they wish to vote in.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2004 01:08 AM |
|
|
|
Hey Wolfman, you want some help on the age thing? I checked Laelth's age in the age thread. If I think real hard I can remember back when I was so young and naive as Laelth.
|
|
Laelth
Famous Hero
Laelth rhymes with stealth.
|
|
posted November 08, 2004 01:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm glad to see the smile, I was afraid it might be otherwise. And if you started a second thread I would have still quoted it.
Nobody's perfect.
In all fairness, though, my fear was and is that Bush would or did steal this election. Ultimately, there's nothing wrong with challenging the vote in every state. What's frightening is that Bush may have been able to steal the election that way. It's equally frightening that his agents may have hacked the voting machines in order to steal it. Either way, the American expiriment in democracy is in danger when it becomes obvious to the masses that our electoral processes are not working. And that's what I see happening now.
Cheers!
-Laelth
____________
Alan P. Taylor, Attorney at Law, LLC
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 08, 2004 01:29 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Well PH, its a good thing Martin Luther King didnt say that, or for that matter Gandhi, shall I continue?
They tended to take realistic action that might actually achieve something.
As for what the Democrats could do, frankly they could start by choosing a candidate that isn't almost totally hopeless and playing into Republican hands. I can think of 2 or 3 people I'd rather have seen run that Kerry and would almost certainly have won. Anyone who manages to run against Bush after a term like Bush just had and still can't manage to beat him should never have even been considered. As much as I dislike the guy, Moore said something quite obvious in "dude where's my country". He said that the defeat of Bush cannot and should not be left down to the idiots who run the Democratic party, but be down to individual liberals making sure their voice is heard. Seems he was right, the Democratic party seems quite incapable of defeating one of the worst Republican presidents in recent times.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
| |
|
|
