Ustwo

My polling place was changed after twenty years in the same spot and apparently no one sent out any information. People were complaining in line that they went to the old place only to be told they had to go to a different one.

Being a highly Republican area, I'm sure this was done in order to keep the Republican voter turn out down!!!


























The above story is true, the conclusion is just stupid. I'm going to ask that before people start the usual post election day whines about fraud (and if by some odd chance the Democrats don't take the house, I predict we will hear a lot of whines) we wait until claims are substantiated by some facts beyond the various partisan websites.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

cj2112

It must have been a republican conspiracy, designed to look like a democrat conspiracy. There is no way the Democrats would do ANYTHING even remotely unethical.

Dilbert1234567

vote early, vote often.

however, the dead are more likly to vote for a republican then a democrat...

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

Ustwo

Obviously someone has never lived in Chicago if you think the dead vote Republican.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Dilbert1234567

i did not say all the dead do, just most of them.

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

Ustwo

Yea whatever

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

ASU2003

I still am wondering why they couldn't update the software to change Mark Foley's name. On the old style paper ballets, they could have just taped over his name with the different one. But, even though I think electronic voting is the way to go, they really need to have a government oversight group to make sure the systems are secure and can be updated by that group very quickly..

Dilbert1234567

Because the programmers of the software (diebold) is either the most incompetent programmer of all time, or, crooked.

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

Ch'i

Dead people voting? Why not? We've had a presidential candidate that bore a suspiciously striking resemblance to a tree in the past. I wouldn't be surpised to see a zombie, or something of the like, at the local voter booths.

As for the republican thing, anything is possible in America, right?

smooth

This is what confuses me about your posts...

here and elsewhere you've made comments that indicate you think the democratic party has a monopoly/racket over votes in Chicago.

But your first post in this thread casts away any speculation that an organization would attempt to disrupt your republican votes as "stupid."

As far as I've seen, I haven't noticed any attempt from you to reconcile or understand how you can have both propositions be true:

1) democratic party members are corrupt in chicago
2) saying that democratic party members have attempted to disrupt your republican vote is stupid

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Ustwo

Ummm because I don't live in Chicago, but DuPage county?

Plus thats not how the Democratic Machine in Chicago works. They used to vote for those who didn't show up to vote after the polls closed. From what I gather its a good bit better these days, but in old man Daily's time it was open season.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

NCB

Its only election fraud if Democrats lose, silly

__________________

smooth

it looks like your first post fits your description of how the process would work to a T.
people don't show up, then the democratic "Machine" can vote for those who don't show up?

nah, couldn't be...that's just "stupid".


HAHAHA, okaaaay

only ustwo would make a distinction between politics in chicago and dupage county!

let's just assume for the sake of the thread that dupage county isn't part of what most people consider "chicago" or that actual portions of dupage county don't include parts of the city of chicago...

...yes, let's just assume this asinine distinction actually exists anywhere other than ustwo's brain, and that even if true that politics in "chicago" wouldn't affect counties in and around the "city", and continue the thread...

are we now to go forward with the assumption that elections' officials are not capable or interested in messing with people's votes?


because from your last statement it sounds like you're backing off your earlier statements that chicago politics aren't corrupt...and if so, you should stop with the characterization of chicago politics as such (even within this thread).

or are you merely claiming that chicago politics aren't as corrupt as you've implicitly and explicitly stated before because you want your proposition in this thread, that it's inconceivable that someone would tamper with your regular voting location to disrupt your wealthy vote, to remain unquestioned despite your other incompatible assertions?

So I just don't see the point of this thread, other than to make your views known regarding claims of voting irregularities. and that those views are that such claims are ludicrous.

Now, if there's something else in this thread, I don't see it.
and if there's a question in there, I don't see it
so please clarify it's purpose.

as it stands, I think it should be closed or moved to nonsense.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

analog

Oh goodie, the war has begun!


[MOD NOTE]
Save the smarmy one-liners and quips, keep your trolling and baiting under control, and we'll all survive this election period.

Keep up the shenanigans, and see how quickly the temp bans fly.

Consider this the first warning- anything after this will come with short vacations.

[/MOD NOTE]

Marvelous Marv

Noticeably lacking:

Demands for recounts.
Accusations of voter fraud.
Hanging chads.
Supreme court activity.
Screams of rage about Diebold voting machines. You couldn't AVOID hearing those when the Republicans won a close race two years ago, although there appear to be quite a few close races this time.

Whether Analog likes it or not, your point is valid.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher

feelgood

I'm wonderin why there's a need to create another Voter Fraud related thread when there's already several others

Let the Election Fraud Begin!
Was the Dems win fixed

__________________
Looking out the window, that's an act of war. Staring at my shoes, that's an act of war. Committing an act of war? Oh you better believe that's an act of war

pan6467

Just to clarify, my thread: Was the Dems win fixed

Is in Paranoia and states at the end of my post:

Just want to make sure you know that.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

qtpye4u84

lol what about the ppl that got married and got 2 ballot's one with there new last name one with the old. Hmmm.... I wonder if the state would really know (I got 2 they had a hot line to fix it though)

__________________
The QTpie

Paq

so i was thinking

and this probably belongs more in tilted paranoia, but anyway

what if the republicans rigged it so they would lose this time....so the dems and the rest of the country would believe the diebold/electronic voting machines were accurate....

think about it, not much is going to happen for 2 yrs now, but they set the stage for a very close 2008 battle that a .......buggy...voting machine could sway. then the dems and others complain about diebold and the republicans point to the 2006 elections and say how they didn't complain. I mean, webb capitulated very quickly as did bush in dropping rummy....

just tossin it out there

__________________
Live.

Chris

smooth

I shouldn't read stuff like this when I'm stoned because it makes me consider the scenario as a plausable explanation. But it seems to me to be a lot to try and keep together over a long period of time. And just not really feasable as a good strategy. It's sounds casually simple enough, but the logistics would be boggling I think.

I just wanted to say that I gave your idea some thought when I read it

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

stevo

I always felt the one who concedes defeat and doesn't drag the country through the mud with a recount and accusations of fraud is the good american. kind of like nixon conceding defeat in '62. Unlike gore in 2000. but thats just my partisan stance...

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

Elphaba

Gee, where is Ustwo? Not a sign of him since election day. I blame the Democrats.

Paq

first off, smooth, thanks for the consideration..seriously honestly, i don't think it's a lot of logistics to consider, as the republicans have been around for a while and i'm sure they can form a long term plan of 2 yrs or more....not that i think it was done, but it would definitely be easy for the republicans and diebold CEO to do without even breaking a sweat. Like i said, best done in paranoia, though, as i don't really believe they did it. Time will tell

Stevo: while it can be nobler to concede instead of draw out, etc......cmon, the gore thing in 2000 was a VERY special case and something that almost any politician would have done. IE, close race, some questionable actions in a state where the opponent's brother is governor and father's friends are deciding your fate...yeah, i'd call that sticking up for something you believed in and something you'd do when faced with what, on the surface, appears to be questionable. I respect that more than just "ok, you win" when there was more than enough evidence to suggest a further investigation.

But that's just me.

I also feel as if it was a waste of time to impeach a president for firing someone he hired and for lying about getting a bj that is none of the country's business...

again, that's just me

__________________
Live.

Chris

hiredgun

I guess the distinction between Stevo and Paq in these last few posts is just this: is it, on balance, better for the health of our democracy to have undergone the drawn-out process of recount and contestation, or is the institution of the election better off if it faces no contest?

I don't think the answer is really self-evident and I think a coherent argument could be made on either side. That might actually be a discussion worth having.

Is the process of testing and challenging the collective national belief in our electoral system valuable despite the damage it might do to the strength of that belief by laying it open for re-examination?