Kerry Won...

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Elan0204, Nov 9, 2004.

  1. Elan0204 macrumors 65816

    Elan0204

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #1
    Article Link

    I'm not saying if I agree or disagree with this article, but I'd like to hear some thoughts from others here on MacRumors. Please take the time to read the whole article (I know it's long), and I hope your responses will consist of well thought out and supported arguments. I'm hoping this thread won't turn into another "Bush won, get over it" versus "Bush stole a second election" thread, without anyone bothering to read the article or back up what they are saying.

    Article continued in next post...
     
  2. Elan0204 thread starter macrumors 65816

    Elan0204

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #2
    There are a bunch of links in the article, so if you would like to follow them, be sure to click on the link to the actual article at the top of my first post.

    Learn more about the author, Greg Palast, at his site. Here are links to other columns he has written.
     
  3. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #3
    Whatever, the spoilage numbers can only be carried over when the voting system remains the same.

    Problem is many states changed the voting system, so you cannot apply the old spoilage numbers statewide -- except in the counties where the system stayed the same.

    So this year was not typical, though there were some "other" problems that came up.

    And the 150k Ohio provisional ballots, were not counted yet -- since the state law required a wait of 11 days before they could even begin the count. So they will probably be counted (at least the ones where the voter was a valid voter.)

    The vote will change in the country, hopefully not by too much. :eek:
     
  4. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #4
    blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah kerry won. blah blah kerry won, blah blah blah blah.

    What a joke. HE LOST can we get over it!
     
  5. Durandal7 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2001
    #5
    If the Democrats spent as much time trying to figure out how to become relevant again as they do coming up with elaborate scenarios that suggest Kerry won and insulting Red States they would be in a very good position.

    I have news for you: Bush won by a margin of 3 million votes. Voters in Red States will not vote for your guy in '08 if you keep calling them Redneck Christian Idiots.
     
  6. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #6
    More the reason that we need to change the Electoral College system. Even if adapt what some states do, and the splitting of the votes by the popular vote of the state. Why should the election have come down to just 11 states for crying out loud. Both candidates gave up on the states they felt they had no chance in. Not what I think the Founding Fathers had in mind with the Electoral College system. Though the RNC & DNC have perverted to their means.
     
  7. Mr_Ed macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Location:
    North and east of Mickeyland
    #7
    Oh man, here we go again . . .

    Spoilage: As long as a piece of paper is involved (punch cards, "marked" cards, etc.) there will always be some percentage of ballots where the intended vote cannot be determined. What the author asserts is that the majority of those votes that cannot be determined are Democratic, based on the precincts with the largest number of spoiled votes. Apparently the only reason for this MUST be a Republican conspiracy. It cannot be the equipment being used in a given precinct, or confusing ballots, or anything else.

    He talks about Ohio being a problem due to the use of punch style ballots, and how the Democratic party did not demand that Ohio try to count the cards that were not quite punched through. Well, maybe that is because they did not have to, nor would they have any legal or logical grounds for doing so. If I'm not mistaken, Ohio state law (since 2001) states the following:

    "Election officials must inspect the ballots and remove chads attached by two or fewer corners before the ballots are counted, and to remake and count ballots that clearly appear to have been voted backwards. If a chad remains attached to a ballot by three or four corners, it must be deemed that the voter did not record a choice at the particular position on the ballot, and a vote must not be counted at that particular position."

    Doesn't leave much room for bulls#!t legal maneuvers, does it?

    Exit polls: I've always thought they were bulls#!t, and this election proved it. Unless they have pollsters in every county/municipality instead of the "convenient" metropolitan areas, they cannot possibly reflect what is really going on during the election. The exit poll numbers on TV also do not tell you how many refused to answer the question. Personally, I would tell anyone who asked me how I voted as I leave the voting station to take a hike. I think exit polls should be banned.

    Poll watchers (Challenges): The article conveniently omits the fact that both parties have poll watchers. In Florida alone, the Democratic party planned to send out over 7,000 of them, including 1,500 lawyers. It also does not mention the fact that under Florida law, any challenge to a voter's eligibility by a poll watcher must be made in writing (sworn affidavit) and contain specific reasons for the challenge. Poll watchers found to interfere with anyone's vote without cause are subject to criminal prosecution. But none of this means anything to this guy. Apparently, only republicans are poll watchers, and what's more, they are using an "old Ku Klux Klan technique." Nice touch, heh?

    Provisional ballots: These are never counted right away because by their nature, voter eligibility must first be confirmed. As someone else pointed out, in Ohio, they have 11 days to count those. In most places, if you are not properly registered, you cannot vote. If you are registered, but show up at the wrong precinct, or your residence cannot be conclusively established, you may get a provisional ballot. If you do not have proper identification, you may get a provisional ballot, or may be denied a ballot altogether. These are well documented laws in each locality. The author tries to strike a nerve by reporting that hispanics in some places in N.M were getting provisional ballots "when there was the least question about a voter's identification." So let me get this straight: Some hispanics in a predominantly hispanic district were getting provisional ballots when there was some question about identity or residence. Sorry, but I fail to see a problem there.

    General comments: Each district, municipality, or county (depending on where you are) has it's own "election board." Some are run by democrats, others are run by republicans. These repeated attempts to attribute conspiracies to the republicans in the media are getting quite tiresome. I still remember all the talk about the republicans "stealing" the Florida election in 2000 in the press, which seldom mentioned that the election boards of those south Fla. counties that were so hotly contested were run by democrats. They designed the ballots so many claimed were confusing and possibly led them to cast the wrong votes. These were the same ballots that others claimed were used to "dis-enfranchise" minority voters.

    Democrat or republican, mistakes will be made from time to time but there is no conspiracy that I can see. Some individuals on both sides will try something underhanded from time to time if they think they can get away with it, so we should not close our eyes or be unwilling to scrutinize the process, but let's try to be fair and objective. This article was clearly neither. And finally, the republican party won this round. Let's get over it already. If the author disagrees with republican policy, his energy might be better spent trying to figure out how to win the next round for his side.
     
  8. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #8
    Mr. Ed,

    What about the NOVA area of Virginia? We had a Presidential slate, and a Congressional slate. Along with two Virginia Constitutional amendments. And I believe three bond referendums.

    By the time I voted it took on average 2 1/2 or so minutes per a voter. All on a touch screen voting booth (don't get me started there). I was in the "booth" (as was my lover) for 30 to 45 seconds each.

    What I see is a disconnect between those that are there to vote for the office of President; and those that have no earthly idea as to other issues they are voting for. And by that fact they have little right to vote.

    Yes, a "liberal" is saying that there should be a "standard" of voting! I would say that 50% were on parr with my "skills". So the rest were taking more than 2 1/1 minutes per a vote. That slows down the process. And in the end it limits the number of votes.

    In the end we need national standards for voter registration and the voting process. Now that we have allowed "electronic" voting. We should not be tied to making a person to vote in any one precinct (if the system allows). With the billions that we spent in Iraq, we should be able to provide every state the means to to be able to collect the vote the same way in every state.

    As witnessed by Texas and Florida, among others. We need to have a board of elections that can be as "non-partisan" as possible. That is tough to obtain. But any one on the board of elections should not have held a position in any party for at least four years. and should not have run for office in the past 8 years.

    IMO there are enough of us on the "fringes" that could do the job, without bias. It goes to the root of "morals".
     
  9. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #9
    From my perspective, it is far less that liberals are calling Red State voters "Redneck Christian Idiots" than it is that conservatives have incorrectly convinced Red State voters that liberals are anti-moral crusaders.

    Go out and ask any liberal you know if they are "pro-abortion" (as in they WANT people to have more abortions--they are encouraging people to have abortions). Then ask them if they are pro-drugs (as in, they WANT people to use drugs). Then ask them if they are anti-religion (as in, they want people to abondon their religion). 99 percent will answer "no" to all of those questions.

    Why?

    BECAUSE 99 PERCENT OF AMERICA SHARES SIMILAR MORAL VALUES. Liebrals don't WANT people to use drugs. They don't WANT their kids to watch as many violent movies on TV as possible. They don't WANT more people to have more abortions. They simply have different solutions to those problems. And, unsurprisingly to me anyway, most WANT their kids to have some sort of religion.

    The Christian Right has been very successful in advancing their agenda: that the only way to solve these problems is a complete ban on morally objectional behavior. They have also been very successful in painting that agenda as the ONLY way to solve those problems and any objection to that agenda as "anti-moral." This is crap. Utter crap.

    Does censorship of media produce non-violent, perfect little minds? Prove it. Does the "war on drugs" actually stop kids from using drugs? Prove it. Does banning abortion actually stop abortions from happening? Prove it. Does abstinence only education actually stop kids from having sex? Prove it.

    I am so sick of the right painting the left as not sharing the same moral base as the average American. It couldn't be futher from the truth. Nearly every liberal I know is morally grounded, sane, individual. But you would never know that listening to the rhetoric of the right.

    Anti-religion. Pro-drugs. Pro-abortion. Pro-violence. Anti-morals. Yup, that us liberals! :rolleyes:

    Taft
     
  10. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #10
    Well said, Taft. Of course the other side of the coin is that liberals have allowed themselves to be defined by the right as amoral (and even immoral) secularists. The time is long past for fighting back. Along those lines, an interesting debate is shaping up among religious Americans over values. It turns out, not all religious people care to have their moral values so completely entwined with the Republican Party agenda. Expect more talk over the next few years about moral issues such as social justice and the environment, issues the GOP has completely abandoned in favor of pandering to the wealthy and corporate interests.
     
  11. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #11
    I really hope there is more debate on this issue in the next four years. If the left can make but a little headway here, they will be in a MUCH better position.

    Taft
     

Share This Page