Title: Losing hope
Description: on winning future elections
greyfox - June 16, 2005 12:12 AM (GMT)
ALGOREismylife - June 16, 2005 04:19 AM (GMT)
Sure didn't like the choices of the poll. :bad:
FellowDemocrat - October 3, 2005 12:37 AM (GMT)
It will be a sad day in America if all of this is true. How do we expect other countries like Iraq or Afghanistan to have safe and legitamite elections if cannot have them here in the states? People need to quit being so damn lazy and actually fill out paper ballots. Honestly now, what is so hard about a paper ballot that would need an electronic machine to take its place?
Uncle Joe - October 4, 2005 04:19 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
| People need to quit being so damn lazy and actually fill out paper ballots. Honestly now, what is so hard about a paper ballot that would need an electronic machine to take its place? |
One problem with this approach is the lack of uniformity, should you have a disputed election as happened in 2000. The "Supreme Court" used this as an excuse to over rule the Florida Supreme Court and stop the ballots from being counted. If a person made the mistake of punching their ballot and writing Al Gore's name on it, their vote was disqualified. The corpwhorate owned MSM made the detemination of the people's intent seem like rocket science in 2000.
We should have a standard nation wide approach to voting whether it be all paper or verifiable electronic voting with a paper trail. It seems to me rather absurd that a company such as Diebold which has machines that give a paper reciept on cash transactions around the nation have a problem with this.
earthmother - October 4, 2005 06:06 PM (GMT)
I just want to point out that the original post in this thread is from last June, so it is not current. The voting and Diebold issue are still current, but the heading "Losing Hope" gives people the impression that some of us here are feeling pessimistic about a Gore run. Actually, I think the opposite is true.
Of course, with a non-uniform standard for voting still in place in this country, election 2008 may be as iffy as 2000 and 2004 were. With the country so polarized and fairly evenly split down the middle, a close election may well yield another questionable "win." Unfortunately, since it is each county (not even state) that establishes its own policies about voting, the only hope for uniformity would be to have the Feds take over the process. I don't think we want to see that.
The Paraclete - October 6, 2005 07:34 AM (GMT)
I agree earthmother, but it is more than whether it is "uniform" or not...The "problem" is is the VOTE going to actually be "verifiable"...As I said you should be able to take your paper "proof" of your ballot results and go down a list at the library..online..or at the government (public record) and be able to match THAT "anonymous" ballot number organized by geographic precinct where you voted and VERIFY your "ballot" against the official records...If WE do NOT have THAT then we might as well go to the "old" USSR way of doing it and just play a recording every year of the "so-called" winner of OUR supposedly "free" elections...ONLY VOTES THAT CAN BE VERIFIED ARE TRULY FREE!...Anything else is just another ..."lie"...If the GOP were soooo sure of their "landslide" votes then they would NOT object to scrutiny of THOSE results! :blink:
earthmother - October 6, 2005 12:43 PM (GMT)
Yes, agreed . . . uniform and verifiable. Absolutely.
RussBLib - October 8, 2005 05:53 AM (GMT)
I've got the solution to the voting machine crisis....
We steal the elections back.
We hire some really good hackers who will break into the voting systems at critical points and fix enough votes so that Democrats win back the Senate and the House in 2006. THEN, we seriously clean it up so that NOBODY can steal it like that again.
I'm afraid the only way we're going to beat the Republicans will be to steal it like they stole it, and then fix it.
All this talk about how evenly split down the middle this nation is, I think, a smokescreen. The nation is NOT evenly split. Most polls show about a 60/40 split against Bush. But as long as they keep talking about how evenly split the nation is, how close the elections were and will be, then they can sneak in and steal just enough votes to win again.
I think I'm paranoid. You think I'm paranoid?
Garden Stater - October 10, 2005 09:32 PM (GMT)
Yes.
But I think I'm paranoid too :D (and apparently so do the people over at blogsforbu$h.com or org, or whateve the suffix is).
Well, as far as your idea goes, I'm in my first year of an Information Technology course, who knows what I'll be able to do by the time the 2006 elections come around (just kidding).
I think if NewsMax makes more "the democrats are going to steal your elections" articles, maybe the Republicans (rank and file) will get scared into calling for verifiable elections, and maybe - just maybe this free and fair elections idea will become a bi-partisan issue, instead of one petalled by "paranoid moonbat left-wing fringe conspiracy theorists" (like me :P)