Tahar Joblis
04-11-2004, 06:15
We will probably never truly know if the majority of Americans - even the majority of voting Americans - chose this path. Why? Because of insecure electronic voting machines and the rampant dishonesty present in our electoral system. Even Bush's popular margin is probably within the potential range of this margin of dishonesty.
This is, of course, one potential reason why exit polls appear to have become worthless, and not match well with the results. I am very curious to see if the results for precincts using electronic voting machines have statistical differences from those that did not. This year I was very glad to vote with a punchcard, not a touchscreen voting machine with no paper trail; after all, a punchcard is unmistakably physical, even if it could be thrown away.
The exit polls in Ohio, which some folks on the ground reported to be a state with overwhelming quantities of angry people turning out to wait for endless hours in very long lines to oust Bush, by and large were predicting a Kerry victory. Instead, Bush won. The more suspicious among you may remember CEO Walden O'Dell of Diebold, leading voting machine manufacturer, promising to deliver Ohio to Bush this year.
It is rare to require identification of voters, and rather than significantly reform election processes, both major parties have by and large chosen to continue mismanaging the electoral process in ways that leave them entirely too open to covert manipulation and dishonesty.
The presidential election was close. A few tips and tides, and it could have gone either way; a few hundred thousand more Democratic voter in Florida or Ohio, both of which states are operated by the Republican party and both of which have made extensive use of electronic voting machines, could've tipped the election to a secure Kerry electoral victory.
Pennsylvania and Michigan, also considered swing states this year by most pollsters, did not tip Republican. Hawaii, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, long historically "safe" Democratic states, were predicted by many Republican pollster and policy wonks to swing Republican; polls had predicted Wisconsin and Hawaii to swing Republican. None of these states did - and in none of these states were the Republicans the ones running the local political machines.
Turnout appears to have been about 15 million voters less than many outside sources had predicted. In spite of all of the perceived hype over the election and polls citing how important Americans believed the election was, turnout was little different from prior presidential election years in percentage terms. The story here is the surprise that failed to happen - America remains, by and large, as apathetic as ever in terms of voter turnout, unless there was a very real success on the part of certain parties in squelching the vote counts by simply not counting ballots. Low turnout elections leave strong power in the hands of the dedicated block voters; in view of total turnout, it is not surprising that the presidential election went Republican.
America showed little difference in its voting between this election and the election of 2000. Very few states changed; the "blue" and "red" states are slightly more contiguous, and narrow elections occurred in such few states as shifted.
More "red" states gained electoral votes and house seats after the 2000 census (and "blue" states lost them), and the extra time that it took Texas to push through heavily gerrymandered House districts explain well the Republican gains in the House. Four newly Republican seats come from the freshly redistricted Texas, which gained two seats in the census but which the freshly Republican state legislature had difficulty in redistricting to suit their whims. Republicans have also picked up a very strangely shaped district in Kentucky, while Democrats picked up seats in - of all places - rural Colorado and Georgia, as well as a seat in upstate New York. The Republican House majority, now ten years old, have benefited as protected incumbents in the progressive gerrymandering of the House into more and more "safe" districts. No mandate here at all, just firm evidence of the security of the incumbents.
Traditionally conservative Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina lost incumbent Democratic senators, and out of this majority of formerly "democratic" open seats, the Republicans managed to gain seats - in many cases very narrowly - while unseating only one incumbent senator. Right now, it appears as if they will manage to avoid losing an incumbent senator by a margin of roughly ten thousand votes. Again, no real mandate here, but a progressive increase in power by the Republicans that can't be ignored. Illinois has elected a black senator by a landslide, Obama, who is definitely an up-and-coming sort. He may have very real influence over national politics in the next few years.
The various ballot measures have been cited as the most important thing in this election; Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah all voted to ban same sex marriage. It is unsurprising in most of these states. These are primarily symbolic measures, presumably leading up to a serious attempt by the Republicans to amend the federal Constitution likewise. Marijuana news is mixed, with Montana but not Oregon legalizing medical marijuana and Alaska not legalizing marijuana on the whole. California voted against amending the now-infamous "Three Strikes" law, and voted to fund stem cell research in a serious rebuke of Republican policies. Arizona decided to tighten restrictions on immigrants receiving any sort of public benefits as well as voting, Maine capped property taxes, and Florida decided that teens can't get abortion without their parents finding out, while Colorado greedily reaffirmed the "all-or-nothing" stance that benefits large states within the presidential electoral system.
The real story here is not a newfound popular mandate for Bush and the Republicans from the entire country, garnering the endorsements of perhaps as many as 59 million voters (depending on factors mentioned above) but "more of the same." More of the same of what we saw in the 2000 and 2002 elections, that is. We can expect to see the national deficit continue to increase, the economy to move sluggishly, federal money continue to flow towards "red" states from "blue" states, and most states to keep on doing as they've been doing in the past few years. I forecast continued division in the country, and continued gaps in what the Republican rank and file believe is true with what the rest of the world believes to be true.
I also expect continued and increasing propaganda against the EU and a continued crusade against Muslim countries. Foreign relations over the next two years will be increasingly ideologically based, and the United States will continue to undermine the United Nations. Internal propaganda will continue to be focused on the "war on terror" and maintaining a wartime feel in the US. Any progression of hardship, economic decline, or restriction of rights will be either labelled either a wartime necessity or a "defense of traditional American values." This progression towards military theocracy was, ironically enough, predicted by many American science fiction writers back in the 1960s-1970s. If backlash does not occur significantly along with reforms to insure honesty in future elections, it is likely that the United States will come to more closely resemble corporatist facism in practice, in a sense very well backed by political science. In spite of this, I see the Republican party continuing to use and abuse such libertarians as exist within their ranks by using the same tactics as the original Facist party of Italy used to gain the support of most of their Italian counterparts - point at the bogeyman of "leftist communism."
I forecast a marginal increase in the probability of World War III being triggered in the next two years, although this remains a relatively low probability occurance. Thank goodness for small favors.
This is, of course, one potential reason why exit polls appear to have become worthless, and not match well with the results. I am very curious to see if the results for precincts using electronic voting machines have statistical differences from those that did not. This year I was very glad to vote with a punchcard, not a touchscreen voting machine with no paper trail; after all, a punchcard is unmistakably physical, even if it could be thrown away.
The exit polls in Ohio, which some folks on the ground reported to be a state with overwhelming quantities of angry people turning out to wait for endless hours in very long lines to oust Bush, by and large were predicting a Kerry victory. Instead, Bush won. The more suspicious among you may remember CEO Walden O'Dell of Diebold, leading voting machine manufacturer, promising to deliver Ohio to Bush this year.
It is rare to require identification of voters, and rather than significantly reform election processes, both major parties have by and large chosen to continue mismanaging the electoral process in ways that leave them entirely too open to covert manipulation and dishonesty.
The presidential election was close. A few tips and tides, and it could have gone either way; a few hundred thousand more Democratic voter in Florida or Ohio, both of which states are operated by the Republican party and both of which have made extensive use of electronic voting machines, could've tipped the election to a secure Kerry electoral victory.
Pennsylvania and Michigan, also considered swing states this year by most pollsters, did not tip Republican. Hawaii, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, long historically "safe" Democratic states, were predicted by many Republican pollster and policy wonks to swing Republican; polls had predicted Wisconsin and Hawaii to swing Republican. None of these states did - and in none of these states were the Republicans the ones running the local political machines.
Turnout appears to have been about 15 million voters less than many outside sources had predicted. In spite of all of the perceived hype over the election and polls citing how important Americans believed the election was, turnout was little different from prior presidential election years in percentage terms. The story here is the surprise that failed to happen - America remains, by and large, as apathetic as ever in terms of voter turnout, unless there was a very real success on the part of certain parties in squelching the vote counts by simply not counting ballots. Low turnout elections leave strong power in the hands of the dedicated block voters; in view of total turnout, it is not surprising that the presidential election went Republican.
America showed little difference in its voting between this election and the election of 2000. Very few states changed; the "blue" and "red" states are slightly more contiguous, and narrow elections occurred in such few states as shifted.
More "red" states gained electoral votes and house seats after the 2000 census (and "blue" states lost them), and the extra time that it took Texas to push through heavily gerrymandered House districts explain well the Republican gains in the House. Four newly Republican seats come from the freshly redistricted Texas, which gained two seats in the census but which the freshly Republican state legislature had difficulty in redistricting to suit their whims. Republicans have also picked up a very strangely shaped district in Kentucky, while Democrats picked up seats in - of all places - rural Colorado and Georgia, as well as a seat in upstate New York. The Republican House majority, now ten years old, have benefited as protected incumbents in the progressive gerrymandering of the House into more and more "safe" districts. No mandate here at all, just firm evidence of the security of the incumbents.
Traditionally conservative Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina lost incumbent Democratic senators, and out of this majority of formerly "democratic" open seats, the Republicans managed to gain seats - in many cases very narrowly - while unseating only one incumbent senator. Right now, it appears as if they will manage to avoid losing an incumbent senator by a margin of roughly ten thousand votes. Again, no real mandate here, but a progressive increase in power by the Republicans that can't be ignored. Illinois has elected a black senator by a landslide, Obama, who is definitely an up-and-coming sort. He may have very real influence over national politics in the next few years.
The various ballot measures have been cited as the most important thing in this election; Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah all voted to ban same sex marriage. It is unsurprising in most of these states. These are primarily symbolic measures, presumably leading up to a serious attempt by the Republicans to amend the federal Constitution likewise. Marijuana news is mixed, with Montana but not Oregon legalizing medical marijuana and Alaska not legalizing marijuana on the whole. California voted against amending the now-infamous "Three Strikes" law, and voted to fund stem cell research in a serious rebuke of Republican policies. Arizona decided to tighten restrictions on immigrants receiving any sort of public benefits as well as voting, Maine capped property taxes, and Florida decided that teens can't get abortion without their parents finding out, while Colorado greedily reaffirmed the "all-or-nothing" stance that benefits large states within the presidential electoral system.
The real story here is not a newfound popular mandate for Bush and the Republicans from the entire country, garnering the endorsements of perhaps as many as 59 million voters (depending on factors mentioned above) but "more of the same." More of the same of what we saw in the 2000 and 2002 elections, that is. We can expect to see the national deficit continue to increase, the economy to move sluggishly, federal money continue to flow towards "red" states from "blue" states, and most states to keep on doing as they've been doing in the past few years. I forecast continued division in the country, and continued gaps in what the Republican rank and file believe is true with what the rest of the world believes to be true.
I also expect continued and increasing propaganda against the EU and a continued crusade against Muslim countries. Foreign relations over the next two years will be increasingly ideologically based, and the United States will continue to undermine the United Nations. Internal propaganda will continue to be focused on the "war on terror" and maintaining a wartime feel in the US. Any progression of hardship, economic decline, or restriction of rights will be either labelled either a wartime necessity or a "defense of traditional American values." This progression towards military theocracy was, ironically enough, predicted by many American science fiction writers back in the 1960s-1970s. If backlash does not occur significantly along with reforms to insure honesty in future elections, it is likely that the United States will come to more closely resemble corporatist facism in practice, in a sense very well backed by political science. In spite of this, I see the Republican party continuing to use and abuse such libertarians as exist within their ranks by using the same tactics as the original Facist party of Italy used to gain the support of most of their Italian counterparts - point at the bogeyman of "leftist communism."
I forecast a marginal increase in the probability of World War III being triggered in the next two years, although this remains a relatively low probability occurance. Thank goodness for small favors.