NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm curious why people here aren't up in arms regarding the voting irregularities, especially in Florida, in this past US presidential election. A UC Berkeley Study (http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/new_web/VOTE2004/election04_WP.pdf) (summary (http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/new_web/VOTE2004/election04_Sum.pdf)) shows that electronic voting machines caused more votes to be cast for Bush, with 99.9% certainty that this is not a coincidence.

Blackboxvoting.org details hundreds of instances of electronic voting machine "failure" that changed the results of elections, and could only be fixed because there were physical ballots - in much of Florida, there are no physical ballots so a recount is impossible.

Where's the outrage? It looks like Bush stole the election again, and no one cares?

I'm curious why people here aren't up in arms regarding the voting irregularities, especially in Florida, in this past US presidential election. A UC Berkeley Study (http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/new_web/VOTE2004/election04_WP.pdf) (summary (http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/new_web/VOTE2004/election04_Sum.pdf)) shows that electronic voting machines caused more votes to be cast for Bush, with 99.9% certainty that this is not a coincidence.

Blackboxvoting.org details hundreds of instances of electronic voting machine "failure" that changed the results of elections, and could only be fixed because there were physical ballots - in much of Florida, there are no physical ballots so a recount is impossible.

Where's the outrage? It looks like Bush stole the election again, and no one cares?

Yeah, a perpetual Republican administration looks to be in the offing from where I stand. I gotta wonder why there's no outcry like in Ukraine this week.

Oops, someone will think this is a pointless thread. I better go, or I might be labelled a paranoid delusional

LOL

It looks like Bush stole the election again, and no one cares?

It happened last time and it was so blindingly obvious that he did steal the election that it doesn't seem likely that whoever is keeping Bush in power will let him lose. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if there's a Admenment soon to allow Bush to stay for life.

Maybe all the gun nuts are right, and we do need guns to protect us from tyranny. Now.

It happened last time and it was so blindingly obvious that he did steal the election that it doesn't seem likely that whoever is keeping Bush in power will let him lose. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if there's a Admenment soon to allow Bush to stay for life.

what some sort of emergency powers amendment? Might work if you can maintain the illusion that the 'emergency' is an ongoing thing. that'd probably mean blowing stuff up.

what some sort of emergency powers amendment? Might work if you can maintain the illusion that the 'emergency' is an ongoing thing. that'd probably mean blowing stuff up.

Like Iraq?

But it is getting quite worrying all the Bush Administration would have to do is allow another Sept 11th like event to occur and maintain the illiousn that it is still occuring. Not too difficult for a superpower government.

Like Iraq?

No...they'd have to blow up some part of the US, a real down-homey part of Jesusland. Of course they'd need some poor dude as a scapegoat, but it's a small matter.

If you can give orders that involve wholesale slaughter abroad without batting a lash, what's to prevent a man, a powerful man with no qualms over killing to kill domestically as well, for reasons of political expediency?

Exactly. Don't forget that Bush is technally a Republican which means he shouldn't be a bleeding-heart liberal. Worrying indeed for all the perfect maytrs in Jesusland.

Where's the outrage? It looks like Bush stole the election again, and no one cares?

We care...or at least I do, as much as I would if the situation were reversed and it were a democrat the allegations were being made about (I actually am an independent, liberal libertarian (small 'l''s)).

The problem is, that we spent the last 4 years bitching about how the last election went, and the possible fraud that went on, and not only did no one do anything about it, but they think everyone who buys it is crazy. You will have to forgive those who are a little gunshy about doing so again.

Maybe all the gun nuts are right, and we do need guns to protect us from tyranny. Now.

Yep, all us gun nuts have been saying this shit for years. Governments are only ever kept in line by the strength of the opposition among the governed.

I'm sure Berkely's study is a fine example of non-biased research and interpretation... :rolleyes:

This might help you deal with the results of the election:

http://www.kleenex.com

I'm sure Berkely's study is a fine example of non-biased research and interpretation... :rolleyes:

This might help you deal with the results of the election:

http://www.kleenex.com

This may help you with the stuff coming out of your mouth.

http://www.imodium.com

Edit: :)

I haven't seen Berkley's results, but everything I heard and read pointed to Bush winning this one fair and square. It sucks, but he's our president.

I'm sure Berkely's study is a fine example of non-biased research and interpretation... :rolleyes:

The studiers don't claim any political affiliation, and don't believe that their finding shows fraud, merely some irregularity (possibly a glitch). There's not a lot of room for bias in statistical analysis, because they used a simple, well-known, purely-numerical method to analyze the data. Claiming bias is comparable to claiming that my calculation of 2+2 being 4 is biased.
Counties that used electronic voting machines in Florida voted more strongly for Bush than was expected, and more than other counties. No variable but electronic voting machines accounts for this change. Period.

I'm curious why people here aren't up in arms regarding the voting irregularities, especially in Florida, in this past US presidential election. A UC Berkeley Study (http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/new_web/VOTE2004/election04_WP.pdf) (summary (http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/new_web/VOTE2004/election04_Sum.pdf)) shows that electronic voting machines caused more votes to be cast for Bush, with 99.9% certainty that this is not a coincidence.

Blackboxvoting.org details hundreds of instances of electronic voting machine "failure" that changed the results of elections, and could only be fixed because there were physical ballots - in much of Florida, there are no physical ballots so a recount is impossible.

Where's the outrage? It looks like Bush stole the election again, and no one cares?
There's no "outrage," as you put it, because none but those propagating this unadulterated bullshit believe that it's true. President Bush won fair and square and only the die-hard Kerry fanatics believe anything other than that.

Threads like this idiocy don't help.

It happened last time and it was so blindingly obvious that he did steal the election that it doesn't seem likely that whoever is keeping Bush in power will let him lose. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if there's a Admenment soon to allow Bush to stay for life.
"Blindingly obvious" only to the intellectually and reality-challenged. If it's so "obvious" why has nothing been done? Why hasn't the entire Country been up in arms? How was he able to be reelected? Why did Kerry concede? I notice that none of the reality-challenged ever ask or answer these questions. I wonder why that is? Hmm.

"Blindingly obvious" only to the intellectually and reality-challenged. If it's so "obvious" why has nothing been done? Why hasn't the entire Country been up in arms? How was he able to be reelected? Why did Kerry concede? I notice that none of the reality-challenged ever ask or answer these questions. I wonder why that is? Hmm.
Its also "obvious" to those who refuse to realize that Bush actually gained support over the past four years.

There's no "outrage," as you put it, because none but those propagating this unadulterated bullshit believe that it's true. President Bush won fair and square and only the die-hard Kerry fanatics believe anything other than that.

Threads like this idiocy don't help.

UC f*-ing Berkeley. One of the most respected institutes of higher learning in the country. Carried out by Michael Hout, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, author of three books, dozens of journal articles, etc.

It's not bullshit! He used bloody algebra to come to his conclusions. Algebra is not biased.

Bah! Never mind, I give up. They're about to publish, and when they do the media will cover it and you will see that it is a real concern and there will be a real investigation and the election will be contested and you will be shown to be a moron.

UC f*-ing Berkeley. One of the most respected institutes of higher learning in the country. Carried out by Michael Hout, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, author of three books, dozens of journal articles, etc.

It's not bullshit! He used bloody algebra to come to his conclusions. Algebra is not biased.

Bah! Never mind, I give up. They're about to publish, and when they do the media will cover it and you will see that it is a real concern and there will be a real investigation and the election will be contested and you will be shown to be a moron.
( shrug ) Rant on, ye reality-challenged.

UC f*-ing Berkeley. One of the most respected institutes of higher learning in the country. Carried out by Michael Hout, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, author of three books, dozens of journal articles, etc.

It's not bullshit! He used bloody algebra to come to his conclusions. Algebra is not biased.

You're right, Algebra is not biased. Neither are statistics, which can be spun tons of different ways depending on your viewpoint. Algebra is much the same way. Looking at the variables he used, he fails to accomodate the fact that things, besides turnout, income, and the number of Hispanics, may have and did change between 2000 and 2004. The problem is that he has set out to prove a point, and that, in order to prove this point, he has to ignore certain data from 2004. If changes in 2004 voter data are flawed due to the machines, he cannot include it in his formula, however, by doing so he ignores the fact that this may account for the change in voting numbers. In short, the formula is rigged to produce a certain answer supporting his point.

The studiers don't claim any political affiliation, and don't believe that their finding shows fraud, merely some irregularity (possibly a glitch). There's not a lot of room for bias in statistical analysis, because they used a simple, well-known, purely-numerical method to analyze the data. Claiming bias is comparable to claiming that my calculation of 2+2 being 4 is biased.
Counties that used electronic voting machines in Florida voted more strongly for Bush than was expected, and more than other counties. No variable but electronic voting machines accounts for this change. Period.howeverm the expected results occured in mostly democratic areas, ad the projetions were based upon counts previously not handled by the machines. If we assume the machines prevent fraudulent voting (their obstensible purpose), then the same numbers seem to indicate that precious democratic fraud has been undone by the switch to electronic voting. An examination might very well be in order, but if no irreguarities in the jut past election are uncovered it is only easonable to believe tha it was the previous elections which were fraudulent. Given the history of elections in Florida in the 1990s I suspect this will prove to be the case. The numbers do not support the idea that this election was biased in favor of Bush, but that this election was sbstantially different in outcome than previous ones.

Where's the outrage? It looks like Bush stole the election again, and no one cares?

There is no outrage because damn near nobody believes it.

President Bush won the 2004 election.

He was leading in Florida on election night,
Gore was going to concede but since it was close
they decided not to and challenged the results,
Gore and the democrats wanted
to count over votes and under votes and all kinds
of votes that have never been counted in other elections.

As for the butterfly ballot, it was designed by a democrat
and approved by democrats who looked it over before
approving it.

Then those darn Cubans of which I happen to be one
voted for Bush.