2004 Electoral Disaster (truthout.org), page 1

posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 08:27 AM

link

Worse Than 2000: Tuesday's Electoral Disaster By William Rivers Pitt Some of the problems with this past Tuesday's election will sound all too familiar. Despite having four years to look into and deal with the problems that cropped up in Florida in 2000, the 'spoiled vote' chad issue reared its ugly head again. Investigative journalist Greg Palast, the man almost singularly responsible for exposing the more egregious examples of illegitimate deletions of voters from the rolls, described the continued problems in an article published just before the election, and again in an article published just after the election. ��Four years later, and none of the Florida problems were fixed. In fact, by all appearances, they spread from Florida to Ohio, New Mexico, Michigan and elsewhere. Worse, these problems only scratch the surface of what appears to have happened in Tuesday's election. The fix that was put in place to solve these problems - the Help America Vote Act passed in 2002 after the Florida debacle - appears to have gone a long way towards making things worse by orders of magnitude, for it was the Help America Vote Act which introduced paperless electronic touch-screen voting machines to millions of voters across the country. ��At first blush, it seems like a good idea. Forget the chads, the punch cards, the archaic booths like pianos standing on end with the handles and the curtains. This is the 21st century, so let's do it with computers. A simple screen presents straightforward choices, and you touch the spot on the screen to vote for your candidate. Your vote is recorded by the machine, and then sent via modem to a central computer which tallies the votes. Simple, right? ��Not quite. William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and international bestseller of two books - 'War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know' and 'The Greatest Sedition is Silence.' Excellent piece. My comments after everyone has had a chance to read and digest. (minimal comment as editorial privilege) [edit on 8-11-2004 by SkepticOverlord] extra DIV

parrhesia

posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 08:41 AM

link

Great article

It gives a good summary of some of the problems that occured last week.

Scarface

posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 08:51 AM

link

As an outsider to this whole process, i didn't quite realise the magnitude of problems this election had, comparatively speaking with 2000. Guess i'll have to look into this some more

jrsdls

posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 08:57 AM

link

truthout.org, now that a site that not partisan at all? come back when you have information that does not come from a democratic sponsored site. Seems like you can't admit that America chose Conservative values over liberalism and socialism. I remember when Nixon lost to Kennedy in 1960, voter fraud was rampant in illinois, and what happened? Nixon had class and let the results stands as it was. The problem is that this just makes you democrats look like sore losers, which I know a lot of you are not.

Kidfinger

posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 08:57 AM

link

This really makes you wonder how far back the election fraud really goes. Where did it begin? Nixon? Kennedy? There have always been secrets in politics, but this one appears to be showing its head. Now we need to find its tail and see how long it is.

LadyV

posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 09:04 AM

link

Originally posted by jrsdls
truthout.org, now that a site that not partisan at all? come back when you have information that does not come from a democratic sponsored site.

That makes no sense what so ever.....why does it matter where it comes from...the truth is the truth regardless of where it's from. You tell SO it shouldn't be believed because it's "from" a certain site, yet you won't believe it it's not from a certain site.....bad form my dear man! It really shouldn't matter...what should matter is that the information be confirmed and then dealt with accordingly, not just totally dismissed because it's not from a site you prefer.

LostSailor

posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 09:08 AM

link

hmmmmmm, Id be wary of information you get from truth.org

I'm not saying our electoral process works perfectly, but truth.org is a pretty leftist site.

curme

posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 09:10 AM

link

I wonder if a political candidate even knows if his staff or VP is cheating the votes? I mean, some must know. Nixon seems like a hands-on type of guy. But just for the sake of argument, let's use our current president and the the election on Nov 2nd and say that the Republicans cheated.

I'm not so sure that they would let Bush know. I think Rove and Cheney don't tell him much (ie Iraq) and just let him live in kind of a dreamworld of spin (ie Iraq).

My point is, how awkward and weird to be someone like, Bush in this example, and think your country loves you and voted for you. When the fact of the matter is the votes were manipulated by the people who manipulate you and use you for a figurehead.

Without sounding partisan, it's really hard to accuse the losers of cheating. I mean, they lost. Either they didn't cheat, or they are really, really, bad at it. We know there was systematic fraud and corruption. One would have to assume that it was perpetrated by the victors. How else could someone still win, among all of the abuse, unless one was cheating themselves?

Mynaeris

posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 09:11 AM

link

I am left to wonder what members on this site would be saying now if the Democrats had won. Would they be as "understanding" as the Republicans have been regarding the continued attack on democratic vote? Truly I have not seen any real proof of any election result changing chicanery.

I am amazed by how anxious people are to keep the conflict going rather than (1) Finding a way of bringing America back to normality and healing the crippling divide; (2) Realizing as has Clinton that the weakness in the Democratic Party strategy was theirs to deal with;(3) Noting that the Democratic party had outlived its true value to the masses of this country - when millions voted not for the Democratic Party but against Bush; and (4) Noting further that there is NO country that can be cited where there hasn't been speculation of cheating - other than dictatorships.

[edit on 8-11-2004 by Mynaeris]

Thorfinn Skullsplitter

posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 09:13 AM

link

Great article. But much like the faurd of 2000, this will just bne denied, irnoged and forgotten. We are stuck with Bush despite his criminal ways.

And people get angry with me when I give them the answer to the, "Are you going to vote," question. So I say, shame on you if you were blind enough to vote.

As if the electoral college wasn't bad enough, now we have the future of election rigging with these voting machines that for months and months were scrutinized by researchers to be faulty and open to tampering.

The fact that you have to be a member of the social elite and wealthy to even have a chance at being president should send a clear message.

The truth doesn't matter in this so called democracy, what matters is who can rig the election the best. Who can lie the most convincingly. Who has the special interests in mind.

I'd really like to know, from those that voted, do you still believe your vote counts?...

[edit on 8-11-2004 by Thorfinn Skullsplitter]

jrsdls

posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 09:16 AM

link

LadyV, while I agree with you, I was chidded because I used sites that did not meet the criterior of the Democrats on this board. Propaganda does come from both sides. While I can't verify the veracity of this particle article, the other articles I have read on this site stand out like a bright light on it's agenda. anti-bush and anti-republican. how can anyone view a site that shows an Iraqi insurgent and the flag drapped coffins of American soldiers. This site only reports negative things about Bush, Republicans and America.

SkepticOverlord

posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 09:18 AM

link

Originally posted by jrsdls America chose Conservative values over liberalism

In reality, the republic came just 0.12% of all votes shy of picking "liberalism" (in your words). It just so happens there are precious few "conservative" sources bothering to ponder the idea of election issues.

twitchy

posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 09:22 AM

link

There is a fine line between 'sore loosers' and victims of fraud. Why have none of you conservative members got on the diebold factor thread and offered rebuttals?

marg6043

posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 09:24 AM

link

Very nice article SO, nice find, I agree the electoral system is not perfect, in this time and age, in which elections are so close relying on one way of voting over the other is not a smart choice, I voted in a machine but I would have prefer a ballot.

Even when it was easier I still had that nagging feeling that computers can be manipulated any way you want.

All you have from any type of voting system is the promise of your vote being counted, and you have to go home and take that with you in your mind.

But elections become disputed over then you wonder again if your vote really, really was counted.

jrsdls

posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 09:26 AM

link

SO, how do you come up with that 0.12%? what formular are you using. according to cspan.org the votes were 59,651,290 for Bush and 56,158,908 for Kerry. seems like that is more that 0.12%, maybe my math is off but it seems like a larger margin.

Mynaeris

posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 09:27 AM

link

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by jrsdls
America chose Conservative values over liberalism

In reality, the republic came just 0.12% of all votes shy of picking "liberalism" (in your words).

It just so happens there are precious few "conservative" sources bothering to ponder the idea of election issues.

I am sorry to ask this question but I can't seem to find the figure you're quoting on any of the CNN.com elections results pages. Not nationally nor in Ohio? Am I looking in the wrong place?

www.cnn.com...
www.cnn.com...

LadyV

posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 09:29 AM

link

Originally posted by jrsdls
SO, how do you come up with that 0.12%?

Um...I do believe you have to factor in those that voted for neither party....they didn't want Bush in either. They "do" count too ya know.

smokenmirrors

posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 09:31 AM

link

Why is it so difficult to accept a loss? Is it self rightousness that is to blame? Do we have a feeling of superiority, an idea that we have a "right" to hold power based upon our beliefs?

Republican? Is that a nasty word?

I see a trend in the U.S. political arena, and it is across the board, not just the executive branch, but the house, the senate, the governerships. It would be ingenious if each was "rigged".

My question is, if Republicans are so "stupid" how is it they have the wisdom and intellectual capacity to lie cheat and steal their way into office? Are they a breed apart from the Democrat?

Does the Democrat not have the knowledge to "steal" an election themselves?

The best coup, in my humble opinion, is the "rigging" of the South Dakota vote so as to render Tom Daschle unemployed....

marvelous, simply ingenious

frayed1

posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 09:33 AM

link

Is it leftist or even partisan just to say there were problems?

It's not leftist to want a paper reciept, is it? I get one from the gas pump, from McDonalds, and from the ATM ( and many of those are made by Diebold, aren't they? I bet they even generate a print out to show the day's transactions.)......I could want that if I were pro Bush, just for confimation, couldn't I? I would even be willing to pay for a reciept...what could it cost? a buck maybe?

Sailor, why do you have the Rober Frost quote in your signature? "broadminded" is not a synonym for liar.

Mynaeris

posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 09:34 AM

link

Originally posted by LadyV

Originally posted by jrsdls
SO, how do you come up with that 0.12%?

Um...I do believe you have to factor in those that voted for neither party....they didn't want Bush in either. They "do" count too ya know.

Lady V you are 100% correct they wanted neither Bush nor Kerry. So its a leap to add them to the Kerry tally. As I have said numerous times - its scary that even with the great anybody but Bush sentiment - Kerry could still not carry the day. I believe that Hillary, or Gore or Dean could have won the election. I know I would have viewed them much more positively than I viewed either Kerry or edwards. This was truly the worst showing by the Democrats ever. (a) Weak candidates and (2) Out of touch with their command voters -(Clinton)