Ohio Ballot Recount Will Happen....What Will it Reveal?
 

I believe a recount of presidential ballots in Ohio will happen and that it
will be a positive in helping to heal the political rift in the nation by reducing
speculation that a voting fraud conspiracy resulted in Bush retaining the
presidency while legitimately receiving less popular votes in Ohio, and
possibly in Florida. Do you agree or disagree that an Ohio recount will
happen or that it is a necessary step in our political process?

Bev Harris initiated a suit against Diebold that has resulted in the company agreeing to pay $2.6 million to settle a lawsuit alleging that it lied about its faulty equipment before the March primary.
<a href="http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=%22bev+harris%22&scoring=d">Bev Harris Google News search results</a>
<a href="http://www.votersunite.org/electionproblems.asp?sort=date&selectstate=OH&selectproblemtype=ALL">http://www.votersunite.org/electionproblems.asp?sort=date&selectstate=OH&selectproblemtype=ALL</a>

I'm dissapointed by the election results. But lets face it, President Bush won, fairly. More people voted for him in ohio, and in the entire country. Even if this recount gave Kerry 50,000 more votes (very highly doubtful) it would still be a 100k difference. Just too big of a win to make a recount useful.

Would I be pleased to see a recount? Yes.
Do I think there was fraud on a massive, nearly unimaginable scale? Yes.
Do I think that it will matter in the end? No.

Every time I have heard someone bring up the stats that showed that the Exit Poll data in areas with paper ballots were much closer to the actual count than in areas with electronic voting, they have been pooh-poohed off the air by the pudits. I have yet to hear anyone say anything that didn't amount to "vote rigging on that scale would be unimaginable". I have a very good imagination. I also know my way around Excel and Access. I also know that who votes is less important that who counts the vote. I am concerned.

I also know this is chapeau by Reynolds Wrap territory, so I'll take what I can get and be, if not satisfied, at least somewhat mollified by whatever comes of it.

I am hoping that some day soon Kerry can call up Bush and say, "I was man enough to concede when the votes looked like they were for you. Now that we know better, are you man enough to do the same?" It is not a big hope, but I make plans for winning the lottery too.

Well, the purpose of the recount is also to evaluate the legitimacy of the electronic voting machines. Some of the machines posted bogus results like thousands more votes for president than for every other vote on the ballot.

Though there is a laundry list of things that are wrong with Diebold's electronic voting systems, these three take the cake.

1) Based on Microsoft Access Architecture

2) Uses an encryption key (DES) that was hacked in 1997 and is no longer used by anyone else for security, for obvious reasons.

3) Administrator pin was 1111

On top of it all, there is no verifiable physical backup to these machines for recounts.

2 Things

1) the article says "Katherine " Blackwell..... It's Kenneth and he is an asshole who dumped 1,000's of registrations for no reason.

2) Personally, I find it a sad day when our past 2 presidential elections are fraught with such controversy. I don't think this nation can withstand another questionable election and going to courts. I have lived through 9 of these babies and the last 2 have been the worst by far. The only way to keep the nation from having more partisanship and destructive politics is to just admit defeat, let the election stand and figure out a way to get Congress back in '06.

I think this is a good thing becouse it is going to show the flaws in electronic voteing. I do not think it will have an effect on this election but starting in 2006 I think elections will be less prone to "error". I think that this recount will also show the neew for an independent head of elections in each state and the inportence of not having that position filled with a "party person".

I feel like saying "Just get over it" I think that all of this is fodder for the media, driven by the media. If those of you out there think that election fraud is reserved for only Rebuplicans......... If we really opened this thing up we would find fraud on both sides. The key here is the margin of victory. Like it or not Bush is the man for the next four years. Instead of looking back, the Dems should be looking forward.

But hey, that is just my opinion, I could be wrong. So like my favorite comedian Dennise Miller says:

"Fuck it, lets eat pie"

I'm still waiting for the provisional ballot count myself. They said it would take 10 days, it's been 14. I don't think the Ohio result will be overturned, but there are obvious problems with the system that need to be fixed. This was obvious four years ago as well, obvious to Bush's election commision, and yet Bush refused to implement many of their suggestions. So we're left to believe that there are those who, through tampering or negligence, are seeking to undermine our system of choosing leaders for political gain.

Also the electoral college hasn't met yet so...

Whether you're republica, democrat, whatever.. I don't know how people can so easily trust the electronic machines.

Then again, I don't know how its all handled.. like who supervises it all or does the counts..

But it's just WAY too easy to forge results when it comes to a computer. There's no way you can take a piece of software and expect it to operate on a bug-free level to have it work across nearly 120 million uses. There's just no way.

To me it's more about exposing flaws in electronic voting than getting the results overturned. I'm not expecting Kerry to pull a win out of this, I just want the machines checked.

The problem is if there is no paper trail, how does one check the machine?

Regardless of the outcome of a recount, I hope the lesson learned is how are we going to deal with electronic voting in a time when close elections are the norm in many, many races. There are obvious faults with any kind of system, but I think there is greater opportunity in today's society for there to be "electronic fraud". In my county, we have a very simple ballot that asks you to complete a line by the candidate you choose. Once done, you slide it into a scanner, which ensures you have not double voted on any issue. If you have, it spits out the ballot and you can redo the form. The usable ballots are kept in case of a recount, which can be done by computer recount or visual recount. Simple system - few mistakes - very cheap technology. Seems like a no brainer to me.

Exactly. I don't know how these machines were able to be used without any substantial regulation or checks in place.

In the very least, the system should've been submitted to a committe of sorts for review of not just the code, but potential bugs and flaws.

Does anyone know if this was done, or was there just one private company in control of all development?

While the recount could show that errors were made in the original count of the vote. I do not see how it could effect the results in the State in any way because I don't see how the turnaround could be anywhere near to Bush's margin of victory in Ohio.

As flawed as the voting machines maybe, there was a discussion about this on Minnesota Public Radio yesterday, and it was brought up that the machines are tested by independent committees, and after approval they're purchased by states. I don't recall the name of the commissions that does the testing, or the details of it, but the show can be found on MPR's web site:

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.or...20041115.shtml

There is a paper trail in Ohio, where 70 percent of ballots cast were of the
paper punch card variety, the same type made famous in Florida in 2000.
The results of the Ohio provisional ballot count should be interesting.....

Guess again....Diebold made sure that their voting machines were not tested
for "security"

In short.....we as in "WE, the People", are fucked.....Bev Harris is a true patriot in taking on Diebold et al and uncovering the largest threat to "homeland security" ever perpetrated. Where is Tom Ridge????? Why isn't
his agency investigating this????? We must uncover and expose what has
happened to our right to vote in fair elections, if we have any hope in taking
back our country. By their silence, the national main stream media and our
political representatives are complicit in a conspiracy to deprive us of our
constitutional rights. It is pathetic that it is left to the Greens and Nader to
file the paperwork and to pay the fees necessary to recount the vote in
New Hampshire, Ohio, and possibly in Florida. Where is federal, state, and
local law enforcement when an attack on our freedom is clearly happening?

Agreed.

I also agree with Ustwo that a lack of a paper trail makes it damn hard to audit.

I love this!!! Since elections emerged we have had voting fraud. Before there were machines to blame we had ballot box stuffing, we had organized groups pulling the homeless off the street and taking them to the polls, we had dead people voting in Chicago.

The system is not perfect, it will never be perfect, there will always be those who find a way to cheat. The only problem here is that Kerry lost, this board is more pro Kerry and that has some people pissed.

To make those Kerry supporters happy, if Bush would have lost, there would be plenty crying from Bush supporters. What is key here is the margin of victory aprrox 3.5 million more votes for Bush. If this election was stolen, then that in and of itself is impressive. (Sarcastic coment there at the end)

Yes Bush won. For me the question is not about who won but about a new voter tecnology that is showing so flaws. Do we not look into those flaws becouse it might uncover some flaws or do we as a country contnue to try to make a voting systom that is less open to fraud.

I say fix the systom if the fix is fuled by the anger of the party that lost than that is a productive use of there anger.

An update on the Ohio vote recount.

LINK

The recount won't make any difference, realistically (Bush isn't just going to step down), but it'll be good to clear up any suspicion.

And I would not trust electronic voting. There's no paper trail to make sure my vote counted, and much easier to manipulate than paper.

Having a paper trail doesn't seem to make a damn bit of difference. I don't hear anyone talking about this crime, which dwarfs the numbers being argued in Ohio.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=21739

A flood of new green cards and naturalizations would overwhelm an Immigration and Naturalization Service that is already stretched thin, racked by bureaucratic mismanagement -- and that stands accused in a damning new report by its own inspector general of minting new citizens on the direct orders of the Clinton-Gore White House in reckless disregard of the law.

The 684-page INS inspector general report was released with little fanfare during a congressional hearing in September, 2001. Its most stunning allegation -- that the Clinton-Gore White House had hijacked the INS for partisan political purposes in what amounted to massive voter fraud -- never emerged as a campaign issue until after election day, when it became evident that Al Gore owed his near-victory in Florida to hundreds of thousands of newly-minted citizens in Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.

According to the IG report, many of those new voters should never have been granted citizenship.

Some were convicted felons. Others had overstayed tourist visas and were working illegally. Close to 200,000 never underwent any background check, so INS does not know to this day whether they were eligible for citizenship. Few passed an English language and citizenship test worthy of the name. Some could not understand their own swearing-in, because the ceremony was conducted in English.

And yet, Bush White House officials point to campaign pledges by President Bush to treat immigration "not [as] a problem to be solved, but [as] the sign of a successful nation," and to speed the naturalization process even further. To accomplish that goal, aides say, Bush plans to split the INS into two separate agencies, one that processes green cards and citizenship applications and a second that polices America's borders.

But before he gets that far, Bush will have to deal with the thorny issue of fraud, and the political hijacking of the INS.

'A pro-Democrat voter mill'

The investigation into INS shenanigans began with a May 1996 report in the Washington Times about an INS whistleblower who criticized the acceleration of the naturalization process under Clinton-Gore. It quoted other INS employees who revealed the existence of a program known as Citizenship USA, and questioned the motives behind it.

Citizenship USA was an initiative of Vice President Al Gore that was ostensibly part of his National Performance Review to "reinvent" government. Internal White House memos, obtained by the House Judiciary Committee in 1997, showed that the vice president was well aware that the effort could be perceived as a "pro-Democrat voter mill."

On March 28, 1996, White House aide Doug Farbrother e-mailed Gore detailing his efforts to get INS to waive fingerprinting and background checks "to make me confident they could produce a million new citizens before Election Day."

Gore then wrote Clinton: "You asked us to expedite the naturalization of nearly a million legal aliens who have applied to become citizens." The risk, Gore warned, was that "we might be publicly criticized for running a pro-Democrat voter mill and even risk having Congress stop us."

Congress did complain -- but only after the election.

In response to those complaints, the Joint Management Division of the Department of Justice hired KPMG Peat Marwick to review the Citizenship USA program, which ran from Aug. 31, 1995 through Sept. 30, 1996. They found that of the 1,049,867 aliens naturalized under the program, INS never did fingerprint checks on 180,000 persons.

"Applicants who were ineligible because of criminal records, or because they fraudulently obtained green cards, were granted citizenship because the INS was moving too fast to check their records," says Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, who chaired the House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on the IG report last September.

In addition to those 180,000, Smith said, "more than 80,000 aliens had fingerprint checks that generated criminal records, but they were naturalized anyway."

The initial review by KPMG Peat Marwick led to a temporary slowdown in the numbers of new citizens. But not for long.

By 1999, the numbers shot up once again, with 872,485 aliens granted citizenship, according to INS statistics made available to the Western Journalism Center. And during its final year in office, the Clinton-Gore administration used streamlined naturalization procedures to mine yet another 898,315 new citizens, just in time for voter registration deadlines last October.

INS officials said in interviews that they received 1.3 million applications during the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30. Some 400,000 of those applying for citizenship were rejected.

By contrast, fewer than 250,000 aliens were naturalized during FY 1992, the final year of the first Bush administration. "Naturalizations were averaging between 200,000 to 300,000 per year before then," said INS spokesperson Elaine Komis.

In other words, despite hearings in 1997 that roundly condemned the administration's naturalization program, and promises from the INS to reform its own procedures, it was back to the Democratic voter mill -- just in time for the 2000 election.

According to the newly released inspector general's report, the latest rush of naturalizations took place without any significant changes to the flawed procedures that led to the abuses found during the Citizenship USA program in 1995-1996. Hundreds of thousands more persons were granted U.S. citizenship without any background checks just prior to November 2000.

In presenting his report before Lamar Smith's subcommittee on Sept. 7, Deputy Inspector General Robert L. Ashbaugh noted that repeated requests for interviews to the vice president's office had been denied. Similarly, top presidential advisers Harold Ickes and Rahm Emanuel -- identified as having played key roles in hijacking the INS for political purposes -- refused to answer questions.

Tarl Cabot, you are new to TFP, so I will simply advise you that your post
about the INS and Clinton era immigration policy is not relevant to this thread,
which I intended as a thread to discuss the state of Ohio 2004 vote recount
developments.

Some words of caution about the author of the article which you quoted,
Kenneth Timmerman. His website at http://archive.org .
<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20001110060100/http://www.timmerman2000.com/">http://web.archive.org/web/20001110060100/http://www.timmerman2000.com/</a>
provides strong evidence that he is a partisan, Clinton basher, and a failed
candidate for the U.S. senate. You also quoted an article from the
Washington Times, a newspaper controlled by the controversial, convicted
felon, Korean Rev. Sun Myung Moon.

You linked worldnetdaily.com as the site of your Timmerman article on the
INS report. Here is a rant published just four days ago by that "news" organization's Editor in Chief, Joseph Farah:
Please post as much as you want at TFP.....but.....try to stay on topic, try
to quote and link to sources that make an attempt at even handedness.
That way, your points won't reflexively be dismissed by one side, or the other, and readers can all gain something to think about, even if they don't
always agree with you.

I'm not new to TFP, and I found his post extremely relevant. Democrats have tried to win the last two elections with lawyers, not votes, and when the lawyers fail, they attack the physical means of voting. Those are two reasons we have a "rift in the nation."

His article also points out voter fraud much larger than the "massive, nearly unimaginable scale" mentioned in this thread. Can you dispute any of the accusations it brings up?

This attempt to dismiss any voter fraud that works in accordance with your political preference is gross hypocrisy. Thank you for going public with it.

By your "logic," you have just ruled out the use of any statements by Bill Clinton or Dan Rather, because in addition to being "controversial," they are documented liars. Clinton gets extra credit for lying under oath.

By the way, what does being a "failed candidate for the U.S. senate" have to do with a person's credibility? In addition to writing off "failed candidates," can we discredit "impeached presidents?"

Please look up "poisoning the well." You'll find it's a logical fallacy.

Lastly, this isn't the first time I've noticed that you seem to think starting a thread allows you to dictate what's said in it. I can't find that in the "Rules of Tilted Politics" sticky.

But I'm sure Tarl Cabot will thank you for granting him permission to post!

What your post establishes is the following (but being a newbie, I can't find the rule which states that you get to dictate what's said in the responses):

1. "Some" criminal activity in elections isn't relevant to this thread, but Joseph Farah's opinion of the ACLU is.

2. Timmerman isn't to be believed, because he's a "partisan," but you referenced Michael Moore in another thread. Is Moore who you meant when you said I should "try to quote and link to sources that make an attempt at even handedness?"

3. I can attack anything that uses CBS as a source, since their anchorman made such an ass of himself.

4. Criminal activity isn't important, unless it works against Democrats.

Got it.

I wonder why everyone so desperately wants an Ohio recount, when Pennsylvania uses electronic voting and had a closer vote margin :rolleyes:

If the Washington Times, Worldnetdaily, and Kenneth Timmerman are
accepted as credible sources to link to, I am wasting my time by posting at
the TFP politics forum. Thank you for helping me to recognize this.

I thought diebold rigged it. The recount won't show anything. What a joke

You're welcome. The above is such a golden example of the "poisoning the well" fallacy that you're saving yourself a lot of embarrassment. Especially since you can't refute the facts (which of course is why you tried to impugn the source).

But since you hate the sources so much, here's another for you:

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees...hju67344_0.htm

I have a feeling that this thread is going to see some action if the last part
of this article comes to pass......
And......before the reflexive reaction from the right in response to Olbermann's
quotes of "Jackson", please keep in perspective that the article is the latest
segment of the continuous post election reporting of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann; the only major news outlet reporter to provide credible and consistant reporting about the "deficiencies" uncovered about election 2004......

I only have one question:

Is it honestly feasible that a person who is smart enough to hack into the system would vote for W? :hmm:

Wow, this made it all day without anyone else saying troll?

Hmmmmmmmmmm :confused:

Probably not, but it's possible that a Democrat voter could be confused by the complicated ballot and vote the wrong way.

Double troll.....damn....ah....what was that topic
again?

Sorry about that, just trying to be clever.
My answer to the original question is that I don't think the recounts will reveal much and the election result(s) will stay the same. One party will pick up votes in some districts and visa versa. As long as they don't get to just cherry pick the districts that their party normally receives the most votes. There is too much of a margin in Ohio. Now Washington State's governor race is so close that there is a good chance that recounts could matter.

this article is the latest segment of the continuous post election reporting of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann; the only major news outlet reporter to provide credible and consistant reporting about the "deficiencies" uncovered about election 2004......

I personally can't wait for one of these close elections to fall in a state with a Democrat Secretary of State. Think of the shitstorm that would ensue from the conservative press in that scenario!

I think you misunderstand the situation. Appeasing aggressors only encourages them.

The Radical Right isn't interested in politics as usual -- they are interested in winning. Don't underestimate their desire to reach their goals. They want a bible-based American empire of croney capitalism with two castes: those that earn money from ownership, who live tax-free, and those who work for their money, who carry the tax burden.

One-sided comprimising is otherwise known as surrender. Your political opponents are on a holy quest to destroy and refashon in their own image the economic, moral and social systems that have kept the USA strong. They'll accept your comprimise as an easy victory.

While you are fighting a civilized game -- making the best of a bad situation, they are fighting a dirty war. And I'm not talking about Iraq.
edit: fixed link

I believe they also want to annex Canada, rape all it's natural resources, deport all the French speakers to France, and turn your hot women into Hooters Girls.

Or so I read on a web-page somewhere...

:rolleyes:

Ixnay the anadacay anplay alktay!

Shhh!

Don't make me take away your radical right ID card Lebell :D

Did you bother visting that website, or did you just dismiss me without even thinking?

It isn't a tin foil hat conspiracy website.

It is a website run by neo-conservatives by neo-conservatives. Articles written by people who are quite high up in the Bush White House that detail reasons for, and means to achieve, unchallenged American military hegemony -- aka, an Empire. Papers from 1992 pushing for a war on Iraq for American "strategic interests" in the region, not because of WMD's, the Iraqi people, Al`Queda links, or any of the other wispy reasons put forward for the war.

You have heard about the Project for a New American Century?

I'm taking the stated agenda of the US right-wing at face value. Not the excuses they use to pass bills, but the policy papers they use to determine what bills to put forward.

Capital gains tax on investments are scheduled to expire. If you earn your money from owning things, you won't get taxed for it. If you earn your money by work, you will. This isn't some kind of projection, that is on the law books right now.

Inheritance taxes, which only hit 2% of estates, are going away. A family estate of less than 1 million $ isn't even touched by this tax These taxes hit large estates, and discouraging multi-generation economic dynasties. edit: Almost all of the tax revenue from this tax comes from multi-multi million dollar estates.

Know who DeLay is? Ask him what his position on the seperation of church and state is? How about Scalia?

How many liberal politicians have been called unpatriotic and traitors for daring to actually oppose right-wing politicians? How many judges where appointed by Bush without Senate oversight during the last 4 years, using the 'out of session' loophole? How many judges which the Senate refused to confirm got appointed this way?

I wish I was wearing a tin-foil hat. I'm not talking about vague trends, fears, or slippery slopes. I'm just reading the position papers of the policy makers, and the laws they have already passed.

I know most of this doesn't matter. Many people seem to select a political party, then decide on their morality and political opinions based off the party. The party they support can do no wrong, because that would mean they are wrong.

Those horrible horrible neo-cons. I think the problem here isn't what the website says, but what conclusions you draw. Most of your facts are pretty easy to dispute like
The reason for this was pretty obvious as the democrats own memo's had shown they will oppose any of Bush's candidates for the federal bench. Due to the voting rules in the senate you need 60 votes to get anything passed if people decide to filibuster.

Yakk, at least in here, many people aren't basing their political decisions off the party. In fact, as you've just likely realized, it's unlikely they even pay attention to the ideas of the people who have control over their party's platform.

When people like this ("Empire Builders and Their Blueprint for US Power") speak on C-SPAN or major network show, they don't bother to hide their position. I have no idea how people on this board either miss that and blame "lefties" for being off the hook or ignore them. But whatever the rationale, it becomes obvious fairly quickly that they aren't in sync with the movements behind their own party.

Hehe thats from Smooth's link, and I have to say I'm pleased.

Perhaps some people on these boards even agree with the policies of the 'leaders' :D

I don't deny that the GOP want total control and that there are some very bad eggs in office.

However, what I see is a rising in people believing that the Dems. crying election fraud is either sore losing OR conspiratorial whackos and the majority will tune them out.

You are not going to change this election, if you want to work on things and make sure that '06 elections are run more fairer then I can agree with that and believe in that. If your doing recounts and calling fraud to try to upset the election it won't happen.

So what do Dems need to do? Find a platform not so liberal but still based on our principles which are a government responsive to the people's needs that helps those that help themselves achieve the highest potential they can.

We have 2 years to watch the GOP self destruct and they will. But we have to be ready and in being ready we have to let go of the past and focus on how to win the future.

more liberal. Let's see if the other half of the electorate was staying home because the two candidates were too far to the right for them.

To quote the great Gary Larson "ohpleaseohpleaseohplease".

I could not be happier than to see the most liberal democrat get the 2008 nomination.

I believe the recount is complete and Bush won by less votes than expected. about 110,000 thats 20-something thousand less than first thought. -shudder- I mean fart.

Actually there was no recount yet. That was just the difference in the votes after provisionals.

For those of you who are against a recount what is your argument for being against it? Tell me 1 good reason to not perform a vote audit in ohio. It probably won't change the election but it will at least reveal how accurate (to a point) our voting system was in ohio.

Shouldn't a closer state with electronic voting make more sense to check, like say Pennsylvania? This isn’t about checking out the voting systems, this is about a last gasp of hope that MAYBE somehow magically Kerry won.

Well thats as close to a recount as you're gonna get.

Was tried with Mondale and Dukakis won't work. Yes, you need to differentiate yourself but people look for 3 qualities in a President.... Charisma, can he speak to the common folk, and being centrist. That's how Clinton won he was liberal where he needed to be and moderate where needed, he had a down home appeal and he had charisma. Kerry had the moderate/liberal down but had little charisma and would shit his down home look away.

Rekna, obviously you haven't read my posts about a recount is fine but it won't change the results of this election, hopefully it could change elections so that there is no question like this again.

But in all seriousness the dems better look toward '06 and '08 if they plan to win anything and not harp on the past.

pan, I'd be more worried whether the "down the middle" shot can work anymore. The failure of that move might be one of the residual products of these polarizing 8 years. Maybe driving a wedge down the middle was intentional, but it certainly seems to be the case now regardless.

Clinton won, yes, but I didn't see him as particularly liberal. He won a slice of the electorate. I'm suggesting that democrats may be losing the battle over fighting over a piece of the slice of population that traditionally votes. I haven't seen anything to suggest that the other half of the electorate has actually been sufficiently motivated to go to the polls yet.

It could be because both candidates have just been too far right for them. The "middle" could be the people voting democrat nowdays. Of course, the flip-side is that the "middle" could be people voting republican these days, but Rove aimed his sights on the crowd furthest to the right he could see. I would be surprised if there were large amounts of people even further along the spectrum to the right, because then even Rove and Bush wasn't able to net them.

But it could be the case that there are 40 million "liberals" (basically, people who just want to be left alone to live their lives, is what I suspect, actually--who actually knows what politicospeak they actually will respond to) out there to be called upon to vote with the right message (which doesn't so far seem to be to keep moving further to the right or perceived middle).


But hopefully democrats will realize these things that sociologists have been saying for a long time: we have a very pernicious myth in this nation--the one about personal responsibility.

It's not as though one shouldn't be personally responsible, but that it doesn't account for everything. The myth is employed to explain away structural reasons for: poverty, inequality, crime, education's results, and success. In this case, the inverse, that kerry failed due to personal deficiencies rather than an onslaught of carefully crafted (and otherwise filtered) messages via the media. He was running against a warped view of the current state of global affairs, as well as a misdirected domestic focus. I don't put too much stock the idea that he didn't have charisma or any other personal defeciencies. That isn't something one has inside them anyway, it's built up by the followers (and that connects to the conduit of the message and how it's framed and delivered).


In short, unless we see someone in person, and even questionably then, we don't really know the personality of someone given that the images presented to us go through a variety of scripts and filters before we even get to receive them. Then, they go through a series of filters in our minds (also built up within a social context, and subject to be shaped by social structures, not autonomously in our minds) before we decide to view someone a certain way.

I echo smooth's comments. And pan, I point you to this thread which discusses the misguided concept of Democrats and liberals moving to the "center" to appeal to more voters.

Ultimately, I do not believe there is a new method of speaking that will compel these people, who simply focus on dealing with the myriad of issues that encompass their day-to-day lives, to turn out to vote. I think the best way of getting their attention and getting them to act is probably going to be to negatively affect their life - and that can be accomplished most readily with the constricting pressures of conservative policy.

Vote Republican. Read and regurgitate Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, Instapundit. Decry the oppression of the Tom DeLay's. Bask in awe at the machismo of Rumsfeld. Defend Halliburton. Go back in the closet if you are gay or mock gay people if you are not. Buy a gun or two or three. Get angry when the media shows the horrors of war - but only if the perpetrators are American. Remind everyone about 9-11, constantly, lest they begin to say: 9-11? What's that? Use the words "freedom" and "democracy" as if you own them. Protest abortion clinics. Convert to Christianity or if you're already Christian, use the Bible as the foundation of logic. Lie to yourself in order to tell the "truth" to everyone else.

The best thing for this country will be a Republican victory in 2006. The backlash the Republican's will create is the best hope at mobilizing the people that do not want to force their will on everyone else but have only been focusing on their own life. Take away their accepted life and they will have no choice but to fight back.

It will probably take longer though. So vote Republican in 2008 as well. Sometimes you need to slap someone to wake them from a stupor.

The biggest problem we Dems have facing us and that needs to be addressed first is the local and state political scheme.

I maybe wrong because I am going by just Ohio, I believe it is the case in many states. I will research it.

In 2000, the census came back and redistricting was forced. States like Ohio were then sliced up again to foster a definitive GOP advantage (since the statehouses are responsible for districting and therefore the party in charge can gerrymander districts).

1994's GOP "revolution" wasn't really about the US offices, they won those but what their focus was on was the states, and they took quite a few. This allowed them to prepare and by the time redistricting came about they were able to reinforce their powerbase. (The Dems. have done this it's part of the game.)

Now the Dems. are faced to do something similar if they plan to have any power. They need to win these states back. In doing so, they will be able to in 2010's redistricting be able to regain what they've lost.

People think this "revolution" happened all at once, it didn't the GOP did the best possible thing in 1992 whether they realized it or lucked into it and that was lose the Federal offices but strengthen their base support in the states.

What the Dems. have to do (and I am not saying go right and become pseudo conservatives) is find what the base wants now, recruit great minds and start winning ground floor state elections, and hopefully, get strong enough to take the US House back in '06. (Which with 2 years of GOP in total control I think is highly possible.)

The presidency, US senate and governors are strange animals though, they do not rely on the districting but the state as a whole. They absolutely have to appeal to the masses and not just districts. That means they should be more centrist.

The Dems. need to fight the NRA's and Bible thumpers much the way those 2 powerhouse groups fight the Dems. Instead of giving them (pardon the pun) ammo, the Dems need to secure a position that is acceptable (in their district) while the Pres., Sen., and Gov. focus on the states as a whole regarding the issues.

If you're a Dem. running in a very religious district you need to make it clear that while you are very supportive of other issues in the party, you do not approve of gay marriage, or gun control in NRA districts. You need to get across that you REPRESENT the people of that district and you believe that you do it better than the GOP. I don't see the Dems doing that right now. The locals focus on national "headline issues" and are aboard for all party issues and they can't be.

Just my 2 cents.

Bush won the election.. FAIR and SQUARE.

Because it reinforces the idea that recounts should happen whenever someone doesn't like the results of an election.

And because it puts election results in the hands of lawyers, instead of voters.

Those are the best reasons you could come up with?

A post Ohio vote certification update...............

The bottom of the first quote box describes the security at the Greene County Ohio elections offices on the eve of a vote recount that could determine the legitmacy of Bush's 2004 election. Nothing to see here......move along now....
WTF.....people ????? Bush's lead dropped from 136,000+ to 118,000+ by the
time Ohio Sec'ty of State Blackwell "certified" the state's vote on Dec. 6.
How many votes is an "unknown number" that were transferred to Bush from
Kerry by 25 electronic voting machines? A "reversed vote" narrows or increases the margin by 2 votes. Here is some more food for thought from
today's NY Times:
Web source for above articles contains much more information about Conyer's
investigation here: <a href="http://bradblogtoo.blogspot.com/">http://bradblogtoo.blogspot.com/</a>

<h3>Those who cast the votes decide nothing.
Those who count the votes decide everything."
</h3> <a href="http://www.votefraud.org/josef_stalin_vote_fraud_page.htm">http://www.votefraud.org/josef_stalin_vote_fraud_page.htm</a>

Does anyone have a sense of outrage.......anyone ?????
<h3>
Zzzzzz,,,,,,Zzzzzzz.....um.....oh.....am I awake ???? Am I posting in the
right place ????? (I thought that this was the political thread.....)</h3>

<h3>Thank God, for you.....Keith Olbermann....your a journalist/patriot,
employed by a major U.S. news network.....where are the others ??????</h3>

This time.....one senator will sign for house members contesting the electoral vote!
 

The signifigance is that a partisan majority will be forced to display their
indifference to fair and honest elections when they vote to stop the
debate that will now be required today in both houses of congress. If crimes
were committed to illegitimately manipulate the vote in Ohio to obtain a
Bush majority, everyone who votes to stop an investigation will join those
involved in disenfranchising the American people from voting via methods
where ballots can be physically examined and accounted for. The Ohio and
Florida votes are tainted with a stench similiar to the first Ukraine vote.
Perhaps because the voting is a much newer right now enjoyed in the Ukraine, they refused to put up with exit poll inconsistancy, while the majority
of American sheeple react to similar circumstances by barely raising an
eyebrow.

http://www.freepress.org/departments...y/19/2005/1065

a quite detailed article summarizing various types of what we might call at least irregularities in the voting procedures, focussed on ohio.

I don't know if I'd say that. Sure, he won. Fairly? Nope. But then again I'm not sure if any electioin is "fair". People always cheat. They always do dirty, underhanded things. If anything, Karl Rove is a throwback to underhanded politics of earlier elections.

Doesn't mean I like it, though.

Why do you suppose that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. authored the following article?
He has made his reputation outside of national politics. What motivates him to do this, since he has reached middle age without selling out.....no sign that he sought personal wealth or national political office. Will the attention that his name brings to this controversy drag major American media into delayed coverage of this 19 month old controversy. As I documented in the months immediately after the Nov., 2004 presidential election....the posts covering this are still available on this thread.....the only MSM reporter to seriously cover this "story", was Keith Olbermann on his sparsely viewed, "Countdown" news program on MSNBC TV.....

I would like to see hard evidence.

I would like to see the shredded papers, it's much too easy for someone to make it up.

I would like to see the people who were barred from voting, I would like to know if they were barred because of felonies, being an illegal resident, or because of duplicated forms.

I would like to see their logic about how 98% voting in a Church is impossible, how easy it is (especially for Evangelicles) to be convinced by their pastor how important the election is.

I would like to see the voting records of the inner city region where 7% is impossible. If it follows all other elections of rediculously poor turnout it's not very impossible is it?

You posted a very long article throwing mud in every direction without anyone actually looking for facts.

There are facts and references (208 of them) all through the article.

Surely the discrepancy between exit poll and actual figures looks a bit odd to you? What about the numbers of voting machines in Bush areas compared with Kerry areas? Or maybe the "rural Bush voters" who appear to have "backed a gay-friendly black judge"?

I'll agree that the word "impossible" was not the most suitable one in connection with the 98 and 7% turnouts, but it does sound a bit like Saddam Hussein's poll results, doesn't it? "Highly unlikely" is probably better.

If you're still not convinced, why don't you go to Toledo and look up Brandi and Brittany Stenson? ;-)

Because the only people who could possibly vote for Bush are racist homophobes?

The only way to know is to look at the past voting records of the regions. If 7% turnout is not uncommon than it does not show anything other than a huge number of that voting region simply do not care.

98% could sound like a rediculously large number, but as I said they were all members of the same evangelical churge as stated in the post. If the pastor managed to convince the church of the importance of voting in the election, it could very well be reasonable. Churches very often convince people to give up entire weekends for charity purposes, you think it's so difficult to convince the people to give up 10min of their time to vote for a president?

No, because the least likely people to vote for a gay-friendly black woman for judge are rural republicans. The point about the votes cast for the judge is that you would expect her votes and Kerry's to be similar in proportion across the state. For her to gain ground so spectacularly in areas where people traditionally don't vote for policies similar to hers should raise suspicions.

So you still want to knock the article because of the 98 and 7% thing. You're happy to dodge the judge issue, ignore the exit polls issue (as the article says, exit poll/vote discrepancies expose fraud in places like Ukraine, so why in the US do people assume the poll is wrong?), ignore the skewed voting machine distribution and then not show any evidence for your assertion that 7% turnout might be common, despite wanting more evidence for the facts in this citation-heavily article. Bush must love you!

People intimidated while trying to vote:
http://www.metroblogging.com/videoth...timidation.mp4

There's plenty more out there. For example, Keith Olbermann did a piece about how some Florida counties with large proportions of voters registered as Democrats turned out for Bush, but only in areas where the count was done by electronic counting machines (and nowhere else). This has been disputed because apparently the people there register at birth and never change, even if their politics do, but I don't know why there should be a correlation with the method of counting in use!?! Thefreespeechzone has a summary of the piece (search for "Keith Oberman takes a stand" - their spelling!), and a link to some turnouts with truly are impossible.

Forum necromancy is bad, please let the old threads rest in peace (you can start a new thread).

Diebold was mentioned 10 times in this thread. Above are quotes from members posting in this thread. The funny thing is, NOT ONE Ohio county used diebold machines during the 2004 election.

http://www.ohiodems.org/index.php?di...ails&id=191201

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Diebold is headquarterd in Ohio. They are the one of the largest manufacturers and vendors of electronic voting machines in the U.S. No discussion of voting fraud controversy is complete without dicsussion of news reporting about Diebold.
Bev Harris conducted a nationwide investigation of voting fraud and challenged voting results in several parts of the country....

.....and this is certainly relevant....the CEO of one of the largest U.S. EV machine vendor....an Ohio based corp....publicly committed to:
Given Diebold's business position, and it's sh*tty reputation as far as corporate ethics, and the poor security of it's software, and the lack of paper receipts as an obvious and standard system feature, Odell's comments sounded rabidly partisan, and a threat to the integrity of the vote in Ohio, and everywhere else.

. You are missing the point. where they are headquartered has nothing to do with anything. Odell's statements mean nothing as far as Ohio is concerned. The fact of the matter is no Ohio county used diebold electronic voting machines in 2004. none. not one.

Explain to me how pre-rigged diebold machines can influence the outcome of the Ohio vote in a state where not one county used a diebold machine.

Who knows what lies in the hearts of those clinging to the belief that Bush stole the election? Only Dibold knows.

That's where the conspiracy comes in...;)

I see this board is still paranoia.

Wake me when it gets back to politics.

host mentioned this on the first page of this thread in the beginning of his second post:
taken out of context, it's an easy shot to pull quotes about problems with the validity and security of an electronic voting method (which has since been employed in Ohio, despite what occurred in 2004) and conflate them with the OP's concern with voting irregularities in 2004 that he didn't link to Diebold.

Then why is Diebold mentioned 10 times on the first page of this thread?

Thread titled: Ohio Ballot Recount...
Most popular word in beginning of thread: Diebold

Why even bring up diebold when talking about an ohio ballot recount if diebold wasn't even used in that election?

I can think of 2 reasons to bring it up. One, ignorance. Just plain assuming diebold had to be behind the whole thing, but never really looking into it and see if thats the case. Two, dishonesty. Knowing that other people aren't going to double check and will just take your word for it if you make it sound like diebold was behind it, even if you never say that explicitly. Drop "diebold" a half a dozen times and enough irrelevant articles into the discussion and people will begin to associate the two together. Diebold=election fraud in ohio.

Too bad everyone now knows diebold had nothing to do with the 2004 ohio results...:p

well, stevo, first of all, host himself already posted that the 2004 ohio elections weren't diebold electronic operations. I already quoted him and, as mentioned, I pulled it from the first sentence of his second post, so your smugness about "alerting" the tfp members to this fact is becoming a red herring. worse, it appears that you've used your new "findings" as a springboard to insult a fellow member of tfp. we ought to strive to raise the standards of discourse on this board, and that would begin with reading other people's posts in their entirety. even those you disagree with predominantly, such as host's, and if you had done so you would have noticed that he already posted what you are now "discovering" much later in the discussion.

your question about why someone would discuss diebold in this thread at all is valid...once. I'll explain how I see it as relevant and you can take that explanation or leave it, but I'm not going to chase after your logic any further than this post I'm making right now.


first of all, host's post is a question of whether and to what extent voting fraud or irregularities in ohio should be explored. since there is of yet no direct evidence that deliberate fraud occurred, it appears to me to be appropriately relevent to discuss proven or alleged deliberate fraud in other contested voting regions.

that is, look what apparently occurred in florida and wonder to oneself whether it's even feasable that such things happen at all. if deliberate vote tampering occurred in florida, it's conceivable it occurred in ohio.

secondly, regardless of what method the votes were taken in 2004, the fact remains that in 2006 the machines being used to tally votes in ohio are diebold machines. they are also used in california. in fact, only diebold and one other company produce over 80% of all electronic voting machines in this country.

given that, we ought to look at what is being discovered about their tamperability--as a seperate issue of whether it occurred.

so we have a few issues: whether vote tampering happens at all (let's examine the diebold interactins in florida for guidance) and whether it occurred in ohio (let's examine the physical votes in the form of a recount) and whether it could conceivably occur in the future (and now we examine diebold's role in current ohio elections).