just to start some trouble (*warning*politics)

[Perris Calderon]

that's what this thread is about zarband...that's a great post

hopefully, the results of the election are correct

but any patriot of this country needs to know if our election process was overthrown....these are not little divergences that occurred, they are grand

at the very least, these facts need to be investigated...

really..precincts have almost 100, 000 more votes then voters? ??? ??? ???...

and these are the precincts that the exit polls are wrong??????

and these are the precincts with no paper trail????

that is not possible by any legitimate explanation I can imagine...now, there are some explanations for these exit polls being wrong...while I think they are stretches, at least there is something to explain some of the inequity

I'm waiting for some explanation for those numbers...that's important...does anyone have one?

at the very least, an alarm needs to be raised...yet where is the alarm?

if those numbers are correct, our democracy has been overthrown

 

[Zarband]

Woooo, oooooo, wooooooo, ooooooo ::alarm going off:: Feel better Perris?

 

[Petros]

Mopp 4!! Mopp 4!! Ya goof, Zarband.

 

[Zarband]

Mopp 4!! Mopp 4!! Ya goof, Zarband.

Haha, Alarm Blue! MOPP 4! Thankfully I don't have many more of those to go through Unwonted

 

[j79zlr]

if the people who are supposed to care about these allegations don't do anything, then obviously we are not going to be able to get anything done...

each state has its own methodology to this madness... I still think the electoral college is complete bullsh!t... have a proper POPULAR vote election so EVERY vote counts and teh candidates have to appeal to EVERYBODY...

with the electoral college a few cities in a few states are going to keep getting all the attention while other cities and states are left all alone... that is mis-representation...

Uh, that is exactly what the electoral college is there for, so this doesn't happen. If it weren't for the EC, the only places that would matter would be New England, California, and Chicago.

 

[Son Goku]

texas is mostly red except for the main cities such as houston, san antonio, dallas and austin... these are mostly blue/purple, with tinges of red... if you live in any of these cities you will notice the population is balanced in its views

Well, to the south (close to the Texas border) there were some blue berrys and grapes. I can't say where the cities are exactly located based on a map which contains the general shape of the US and a bunch of color splotches however But I'll take your word for the city you live in...

Was sorta messing with you just a tad bit though... tbh, I was a slight bit surprised to see Texas more red then many states which comprise what is refered to as the Bible belt however... Rove did have about 12 years to mess around with Texas politics though...

 

[Xie]

Uh, that is exactly what the electoral college is there for, so this doesn't happen. If it weren't for the EC, the only places that would matter would be New England, California, and Chicago.

You forgot NY Oh and now the only states that matter are "swing states" (ie. Flordia, Ohio, ect.). How many people outside of these states saw all these famous ads? I know in NY I didn't see any of them except on the news when talking about the swing states. I would have to say though I would be rather upset if I lived in a "swing state" and had to deal with all that drama.

 

[Xie]

I think it's obvious thats what a democracy is about right? If it was any other way I'd be more worried than I am now. It's the freedom to have threads like the one we're entertaining here. Freedom to have an open election like the one we've just had. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the fear here comes from the notion that what we've just had *wasn't* an open election where every vote counted and the candidate with the most wins, but rather where the guy with the most "internal" influence and means to *make* himself win is victorious. Taking away the voice of the people?

I would like to say first off .. nice post. Now on to my take.

Yeah thats what a democracy is suppose to be about. However during this election it seemed to be different. Terms like "anti-American" were thrown around if you for one reason or another (there were many) did not support the President.

As for the election part I believe yes thats whats at question. Did every vote count? Was there rigged voting (other then what was caught) taking place? Did people "hack" the electronic voting machines that had vulnerabilitys and were known by many "geeks" to be insecure/inaccurate? Why was the use of voting machines with no audit trail allowed for a Presidential election (a VERY tight one)? These questions need answering and instead seem to have been swept under the rug.

 

[Son Goku]

perris, there are probably several reasons behind the turn out in the last election. And though tampering with the electoral process might be part of it...there are some indications that this has been going on for quite some time to some degree or other (according to FAIR and some of those interviewed)

Came out shortly after the elections

http://www.fair.org/counterspin/110504.html

Came out a bit before the elections, but looks at the process including some claimed voter intimidation and what not (leading up to it, and during the period of early voting I gather).

http://www.fair.org/counterspin/102204.html

The election is less than two weeks away. But while media watch the candidates, who's watching the process? Allegations of voter intimidation and suppression are popping up all over-- but are the press shining a light on them or sweeping them under the rug? We'll hear from investigative reporter Anne-Marie Cusac of The Progressive magazine.

I've seen other articles here and about concerning the election, and though this might have played a part, I don't think it's the whole story either. I think there are other facets including Karl Rove being a shrewd (albeit arguably nepharious and amoral) political advisor. Those running up against him in campaigns would probably do well to learn his modus operandi early on, and to take steps to deal with it...

In other places, some people were looking at the voter turn out in many rural communities and saying it might not be so much that these peeps can't necessarily be reached by a dem, but one area Kerry's camp fell short on, was cable and radio advertising. This despite an over-all higher campaign budget. Basically put, Kerry didn't put his message in as many medium which reach these people, whereas Bush's campaign did. In essence, there message was more heard amongst these people.

There will probably be many things (and sides of things) for people to review in this election in moving forward, especially as it comes to planning strategy for the next time around...

 

[Son Goku]

Uh, that is exactly what the electoral college is there for, so this doesn't happen. If it weren't for the EC, the only places that would matter would be New England, California, and Chicago.

The EC doesn't make it (based on the last election for instance) so that every vote counts. When I go to the poll, I am an individual, not a state. If there's a preponderance of Bush or Kerry supporters (aka non-swing states), then if one feels otherwise, there vote doesn't matter anyhow, as once it gets to the EC there vote will be out-ruled anyhow. Saz knows where-of he speaks here, as being a resident in Texas, it wouldn't matter how he'd vote. Texas is a strong Republican state (and was a strong Bush state), and hence another vote wouldn't matter.

This can be an issue (wasn't in 2004 however) where the winner of the EC is the loser of the popular vote however. Take the 2000 election for instance, and despite some media mention (in 2004 that people just accepted the outcome)...umm it was heavily protested then. There were also jokes around the Internet, such as the animated cartoon about the "Palm Beach Shuffle", etc. Only if a political party at a grass roots level started planning a mass migration to completely reconfigure the population makeup, would this change things...

And yet on the Congressional race (of which an electoral vote doesn't apply, senators and reps are directly elected via the popular vote in each state and Congressional district), I read that the state of Texas was heavily re-districted which helped the Repubs win 4 Congressional seats there. When I took some political classes many years back I read about such possibilities, but wasn't expecting to read a real life example in this here election. Perhaps saz has heard something about this alleged redistricting in his local press or something, not sure... BTW, I have never been a fan of re-districting in an attempt to change the composition of the Legislature, since I first learned about this

A lot of the rationale behind the electoral college however, was certain arguably archaic ideas in the minds of our fore fathers... Keep in mind, that though mention was given to a democracy within the Republic, and about the right of a vote...this vote was not extended to all Americans in practice. Remember, the right to vote amongst various people's in our nation wasn't granted until after a Constitutional amendment or what not... Even then, in the case of African Americans for instance, many places got around it by giving these people literacy tests (while refusing to educate them) and what not, as a means to deny the right to vote...

- If you were a slave, you had no right to vote.

- Women were denied the right to vote

- In many places, only land owners were allowed the right to vote. In some jurisdictions, one had to own a certain amount of acerage, before one could vote

- The right to vote was not extended to everyone. I seem to remember, there were systems in place where people could vote for local but not national officials... The right to vote was anything but universal for a time since the founding of this nation.

Now the idea I mention? That the average American is too uneducated to be counted upon to decide who the President shall be. As such, representitives should decide this for them, who are considered more enlightened...

Perhaps in there day...but since then, among other changes they didn't necessarily forsee, was the advent of a public education system...

 

[ThePatriot]

Haha, Alarm Blue! MOPP 4! Thankfully I don't have many more of those to go through Unwonted

Holy crap, I haven't heard that (MOPP4) in 12 years! Wow, talk about a blast from the past. Didn't mind the mask or the Chemsuit as much as those damn lace-crazy overshoes. I HOPE that has changed...I see the suit has.

Anyhow...I can see both sides on this one. The electoral college was concieved in an era quite different than the present...but...many of the the practices penned in the same era still can and do apply today. Very fine line to walk on that one...I need to ponder this more...

 

[Son Goku]

Well, I think there are in fact two things going on here. On the one hand, at the time the EC was proposed, most individuals were uneducated, whereas since that time the advent of public education came to be.

But the other side, it's almost as if, even while the fore fathers had ideas which were progressive, and formed a seed idea (if you will) which has since germinated into the nation we now have; there were other ideas existing almost side by side which were arguably draconian by comparison. I mean, how does one reconcile for instance talk about democracy and giving the right to vote, by then limiting it in practice to essentially white, male, rich land (plantation) owners in some parts of the country... By today's standards, this could be viewed as being down right elitist, and quite frankly bordering on snobery...

But a more poignant example would be wrt slavery on the one hand, and these words of the Declaration of Independance on the other...

http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Contrast this to certain slave provisions of the US Constitution, and the issue of slavery which existed at the time...

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_slav.html

There was no great movement in America to abolish slavery in the 1780's, then the Constitutional Convention met. To be sure, there were opponents of slavery, on a philosophical level, but the abolition movement did not appear until the 1830's, when the American Anti-Slavery Society was founded with William Lloyd Garrison writing the organization's nascent statement of principles. Prior to the Convention in 1787, many "Founding Fathers" expressed opinions that condemned slavery.

...Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, which, famously, declares that "all men are created equal," wrote, "There must doubtless be an unhappy influence on the manners of our people produced by the existence of slavery among us. The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal. This quality is the germ of all education in him." Alas, like many Southerners, Jefferson held slaves, as many as 223 at some points in his life. His family sold his slaves after his death, in an effort to relieve the debt he left his estate in.

...Other examples of anti-slavery messages abound from the late 1700's. They illustrate the feelings of some, but those feelings cannot be seen in the product of their works at creating a government. Despite the freedoms demanded in the Declaration and the freedoms reserved in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, slavery was not only tolerated in the Constitution, but it was codified.

There are some slave provisions supplied, but one I seem to remember, does not seem present

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Some have read that to mean that perhaps a slave was only considered 3/5 a person (aka inherently not equal). Others have countered that it was more understood that slave labor is inherently less efficient then other employees (reflected in the taxation), and it was also hoped that the market pressures of a free market ecconomy would make slavery untenable, and the market would eventually expunge it from the nation being formed. Since then, the cotton gin was invented, and well, the rest leading up to the Civil War, the Plessy vs. Ferguson decision, and eventually the civil rights movement of the 1950s is history...

Anyhow, in looking at this, and contrasting some of it side by side...it's almost as if for our fore fathers, there were some more progressive ideas, lieing side by side with stench of some rather draconian ideas from the previous age/era of which they themselves were inheritors and had not completely extricated themselves of. Despite ideas for liberty and what not, they were also inheritors of the past that they were born into and raised up amongst.

 

[Tuffgong4]

the electoral college is a scary thing to me. Not that it is bad, that's not what I'm saying. Really if you look back at the beginning of the country the electoral college was put in place to let the so-called smart people of society get the final say in elections so that the "unwashed masses" couldn't get too much power.

those damn unwashed masses are the downfall of everything!

 

[Shamus MacNoob]

Yeah well I just took a shower !!!!

Night night people!!

lolol

 

[melon]

It is hypothesized that, since 1996, the elections have been increasingly rigged in the GOP's favor; hence, the increasing disconnect between exit polls and the final results. We have GOP-aligned lawyers looking for any sign of a racial minority and disputing their eligibility--hence, leading to relatively large amounts of provisional ballots that are not legally allowed to be counted until 11 days after the election. With our short attention span, 11 days might as well be a year.

We have touch-screen voting machines in many counties that are easily tampered with and have no paper trail. Sure, they've secured the specific voting machines, but they are just dummy mainframes that feed into a central computer, which, as I've been told, is often just a Windows machine appending data into an unencrypted Excel spreadsheet and fixing the election is as simple as deleting the total next to the candidate and entering in a new one. No recount is possible.

And then there's an instance of a district in Ohio having only about 600 or so registered voters, with over 6,000 votes for Bush, not to mention many districts in Florida with over 70% of the voters registered Democrat and Bush winning about 70% of the votes in these districts. It is again hypothesized that the GOP altered the election results in smaller districts in Florida, knowing that only the larger districts will receive media attention. And with no paper trail, there is no chance for a recount or an investigation. A Democratic candidate for the 16th District in Florida also claims to have direct evidence that the 2002 gubernatorial primary was rigged to eliminate Janet Reno from being able to challenge Jeb Bush in the election, as she was the strongest challenger.

(There's an interesting article on possible Florida election fraud here: http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm)

Oh well. I'm not even surprised about the thought that the GOP would try and fix an election; after all, they're determined to stack the judiciary with ideologues, not impartial judges. I'd be even more surprised if this was actually investigated.

But, regardless, let's look on the bright side. The libertarian Cato Institute actually endorsed John Kerry for President, solely because they believed that Bush was so extremist that he would successfully drive conservatism into the ground and turn everyone off to it. I could suffer another four years of Bush to witness the death of conservatism, and, considering what an awful president he has been, it would be interesting to see it happen; after all, now that he's been reelected with a GOP Congress, if things still go wrong, he won't have Clinton to blame anymore. He'll only be able to blame himself...but let's see what lies Karl Rove can whip up next.

Melon

 

[Shamus MacNoob]

All this makes for great reading , as an outsider I find it amazing, if these things were as they seem to be , for the life of me I dont see how it does not get blown wide open. There has to be one group of people in the US that has the $ and backbone to get these things out into main stream , even into a court. The law is the law and if it has been broken then there has to be a means to the end. There has to be way to put an end to the madness. I cant see how in a case as clear cut as 600 people = 6000 votes ! that there is no way to make this a matter of the courts.

 

[Perris Calderon]

here's the scary part.

whether or not this election was fixed won't change the results....since kerry conceded.

the entire investigation would be for the sole puropse of academia.

I mean what would the country do, impeach Bush?

ha...that would leave the real president in charge, that being Chaney.

Is there a process for removing both simultaneously?

no, there's not...and beleive me, both would fight tooth and nail to stay in office, so a resignation wouldn't happen

this is where we are today

by the way...it does appear as though those figures are correct, and there are more votes then voters in the precincts that have no paper trail

if so, America is overthrown, and we will sit back and say;

"but what can we do?"...republicans especially will repeat this mantra

you've allready seen it right here on this thread...people actually saying "oh the tears that are shed, the humanity of it all" and things alike.

these people don't care...all they care is that their party is in office...how he was installed into office matters not one stitch to people like this

 

[Shamus MacNoob]

And that is the problem as I see it, people need to care about "right" and "wrong" but the way the world is today we see more and more people care about "mine" and "more of mine" .

Its sad I must say very sad. Good luck to you all , hope you guys find a way to gain back control of your country.

 

[delta4s]

all this is very disturbing, considering the enormous global implications ...

 

[ThePatriot]

Well, this may sound a bit over the top, but no more over the top than saying our nation is under seige. IF what perris claims is true...IF the powers that be came to be by unlawful means and IF such powers refuse to leave, then this would be you're best friend:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying it's time for civil war, on the contrary, I still haven't seen enough to convince me the election was a fraud. But think about it for a second. The PC party loves to bash the Second Amendment, but, as perris pointed out "what can we do?"...well, we can take our nation back if need be. We have the power right there. Some people want to take that power away. Now I realize this could be a whole thread on it's own, but I really dont want to get into gun lobbying. Just pointing out that the power is STILL in the peoples hands, if we have the will.