NationStates Jolt Archive

John Kerry speaks out again:


Kerry Criticizes Election Outcome

Mon Jan 17,10:51 PM ET U.S. National - AP



BOSTON - Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), in some of his most pointed public comments yet about the presidential election, invoked Martin Luther King Jr.'s legacy on Monday as he criticized President Bush (news - web sites) and decried reports of voter disenfranchisement.

The Massachusetts Democrat, Bush's challenger in November, spoke at Boston's annual Martin Luther King Day Breakfast. He reiterated that he decided not to challenge the election results, but "thousands of people were suppressed in the effort to vote."

"Voting machines were distributed in uneven ways. In Democratic districts, it took people four, five, eleven hours to vote, while Republicans (went) through in 10 minutes — same voting machines, same process, our America," he said.

In his comments, Kerry also compared the democracy-building efforts in Iraq (news - web sites) with voting in the U.S., saying that Americans had their names purged from voting lists and were kept from casting ballots.

"In a nation which is willing to spend several hundred million dollars in Iraq to bring them democracy, we cannot tolerate that too many people here in America were denied that democracy," Kerry said.

Voting irregularities in Ohio drove primarily Democratic challenges to the Nov. 2 election, but Congress eventually affirmed President Bush the winner by a slim electoral vote count of 286-251 — plus a single vote cast by a Minnesota elector for Kerry's running mate, former Sen. John Edwards.



Like Algore, Kerry can't handle reality.

like bush wadd is blind to the real world around him

The problem with American elections is there allways seems to be some allegation or another. Either sort out the sleaze and take it on. Or accept an election result. Don't moan that you lost afterwards when you make no effort to uncover any supposed plot.

He's a US Senator ... it's his *JOB* to represent the people and to do everything in his power to affect change in this country.

That's reality, Wadd. Get over it.

Crazy American system. Way too complicated and weird.

It is odd that Kerry made no real effort to contest the election.
And then turns around and implies that the election was flawed.

If it's flawed, then I'm sure he can either show the evidence and contest the results, or demand an investigation (after all, he's a Senator, and should be fighting for the voters, correct?) and contest the election.

He's not contesting, and he's not investigating. It seems that allegations will play better among his constituency (complete with megalithic Republican conspiracy plots) than any facts.

It is odd that Kerry made no real effort to contest the election.
And then turns around and implies that the election was flawed.

If it's flawed, then I'm sure he can either show the evidence and contest the results, or demand an investigation (after all, he's a Senator, and should be fighting for the voters, correct?) and contest the election.

He's not contesting, and he's not investigating. It seems that allegations will play better among his constituency (complete with megalithic Republican conspiracy plots) than any facts.
unless yo umissed you wouldve saw the news where republicans running the polls and registrations were discarding any registered or voting for democrats

So, you are saying that as long as you agree with the results you aren't allowed to be critical of some of the things that happened in the election?

That there is no mandate to try and make things run smoother?

That people waiting 8 hours to vote should just be shrugged off and not adressed?


Is mediocrity the highest ideal to which you think your leaders should aspire?


It is amazing to many of us around the world how it seems that the supposed "Beacon of Demcracy" (TM) can't run an election without there being significant problems.

So perhaps you might want to forget complaining about who wants to address the issue and focus on whether there are indeed problems that need to be addressed. I think many people would agree that there are.

It is odd that Kerry made no real effort to contest the election.
And then turns around and implies that the election was flawed.


You gotta understand, John. Like many of us, Kerry saw what happened in 2000 and how it basically tore the country in two. He didn't want a repeat of that. Nobody wanted a repeat of that. So Kerry conceded without much of a fight.

Kerry's stance now is to ensure less voter disenfranchisement in the future. Not one single Democrat has ever said that they wish to overturn election 2004. On the contrary, they've all said, in clear language, that any contesting they do at this point is to expose the problems in the system so that future elections can better represent the desires of the people.

Yes, the election was flawed. Yes, it can be improved. We can do better.

Oh yes, and the reporter and paper in which that story was published shoud get a smack upside the head for the story title.

"Kerry Criticizes Election Outcome "

Actually, in the quotes given he did no such thing. He criticized the Election process - NOT the Outcome.


That title seems to be a clear instance of dishonest journalism.

It is odd that Kerry made no real effort to contest the election.
And then turns around and implies that the election was flawed.

If it's flawed, then I'm sure he can either show the evidence and contest the results, or demand an investigation (after all, he's a Senator, and should be fighting for the voters, correct?) and contest the election.

He's not contesting, and he's not investigating. It seems that allegations will play better among his constituency (complete with megalithic Republican conspiracy plots) than any facts.
First, we need to give Kerry credit for conceeding when it was obvious he lost.

Now, that I'm back from washing the bad taste out of my mouth, I would like to point out how hypocritical Democrats can be. The election in Washington State was won by a Republican. The Dems couldn't stand it, they asked for a recount. They lost again. Askedk for another machine recount. Lost again but by a smaller margin. Asked for a manual recount. Lo and behold, they won by a sizable margin. And they lost interest in finding out if there were any more votes that hadn't been counted.

I guess if the Dems win, the count is always accurate.

It is odd that Kerry made no real effort to contest the election.
And then turns around and implies that the election was flawed.

If it's flawed, then I'm sure he can either show the evidence and contest the results, or demand an investigation (after all, he's a Senator, and should be fighting for the voters, correct?) and contest the election.

He's not contesting, and he's not investigating. It seems that allegations will play better among his constituency (complete with megalithic Republican conspiracy plots) than any facts.

He's not contesting the election most likely because even if all the challenges were successful, it would stil come out to a Bush victory (though a much slimmer one). That does not however mean that it is okay that fraud occured (and it DID occur) and that is why he is, and should continue, to bring it up. Just becuase the fraud that did occur didn't affect the outcome, doesn't make that fraud acceptable under any circumstances.

Democrats sadden me when they do this sort of thing. They sadden me even more when they play the race card and attempt to "divide and conquer."

Kerry is, of course, still an abomination.

Oh yes, and the reporter and paper in which that story was published shoud get a smack upside the head for the story title.

"Kerry Criticizes Election Outcome "

Actually, in the quotes given he did no such thing. He criticized the Election process - NOT the Outcome.
Which, in the minds of most people, Zepp, amounts to the same thing. He criticised the "process" in this election, which just happens to be the one he lost.

unless yo umissed you wouldve saw the news where republicans running the polls and registrations were discarding any registered or voting for democrats
If you could get the story correct...

What happens is that parties run registration drives. In the registration drives, the parties collect registration applications that they hand out.

They read through the registration papers and sort out the registrations for the other party, they pitch those and turn in the registrations for their own party. It wasn't poll workers who did this.

The democrats do it too. It's called dirty politics.

Plus the charge about line length in Republican and Democrat precincts is easily understood.

Republican precincts are demographically smaller suburban areas. Whilst democrat precincts are typically in urban areas, a much more densely populated area. It's not election rigging.

Unless Republicans make the democrats live in cities, that is.

Which, in the minds of most people, Zepp, amounts to the same thing. He criticised the "process" in this election, which just happens to be the one he lost.


So you are saying that "most people" are too stupid to understand the difference between the process and the outcome?

That's pretty sad.

It's like saying that you can't complain about a badly officiated game even if one team dominated the other and the blown calls wouldn't have affected the outcome.

The problems with the officiating still existed and should still be addressed.

I recall election problems and "dirty tricks" including vote rigging by both sides, depending on which jurisdiction you were in.

Yes, it's worth looking into. It's not worth using as a rhetorical device to backhand the legitimacy of the elected administration, especially if the person doing the backhanding is the one who conceded.

I don't hear Kerry calling for an investigation of how votes for him were present on voting computers *before* the polls opened in Pennsylvania. He would carry more legitimacy in his call for an investigation if he was pointing out the poor behavior by both sides.

Plus the charge about line length in Republican and Democrat precincts is easily understood.

Republican precincts are demographically smaller suburban areas. Whilst democrat precincts are typically in urban areas, a much more densely populated area. It's not election rigging.

Unless Republicans make the democrats live in cities, that is.

Is it that cities that attract Democrats, or does living on top of each other in a city make sensible people turn into Democrats?

Plus the charge about line length in Republican and Democrat precincts is easily understood.

Republican precincts are demographically smaller suburban areas. Whilst democrat precincts are typically in urban areas, a much more densely populated area. It's not election rigging.

Unless Republicans make the democrats live in cities, that is.


So, people who live in larger cities should just accept that they will need to spend 8 hours in line each time they want to vote? That this was not a real problem and that it is not worth looking at in order to make the next election run smoother?

It doesn't take a whole lot of brains to look at population density figures, evaluate likely voter turnout, and to extrapolate to figure out how many polling booths you need to satisfy a particular region.

And yet these problems still occurred. Evaluating the problems and looking to ensure that it is not repeated IS a valid exercise.

I recall election problems and "dirty tricks" including vote rigging by both sides, depending on which jurisdiction you were in.

Yes, it's worth looking into. It's not worth using as a rhetorical device to backhand the legitimacy of the elected administration, especially if the person doing the backhanding is the one who conceded.

I don't hear Kerry calling for an investigation of how votes for him were present on voting computers *before* the polls opened in Pennsylvania. He would carry more legitimacy in his call for an investigation if he was pointing out the poor behavior by both sides.

And where in that article exactly does he "backhand the legitimacy" of the current administration?

So, people who live in larger cities should just accept that they will need to spend 8 hours in line each time they want to vote? That this was not a real problem and that it is not worth looking at in order to make the next election run smoother?

It doesn't take a whole lot of brains to look at population density figures, evaluate likely voter turnout, and to extrapolate to figure out how many polling booths you need to satisfy a particular region.

And yet these problems still occurred. Evaluating the problems and looking to ensure that it is not repeated IS a valid exercise.
Besides the fact that the matter is far more than just a matter of population density, but location, and the distance to the polling place.

And while it isn't a good thing that there are such lines, but it is unavoidable, espescially when people who live in cities tend to vote later in the day, say the evening about, while suburbanites vote earlier.

This is a complex and strange problem, and it's nowhere near as simple as it is made out to be.

And where in that article exactly does he "backhand the legitimacy" of the current administration?

First rule of Campaigning (to appear as a nice, likeable guy):

Let your minions say the bad things and make accusations of wrongdoing.
Smile, and say nice things yourself.

Otherwise, people who you are trying to pull into your constituency will think you're an asshole.

Stop trying to think like a Democrat, and think like someone who is trying to persuade just a few more voters (that's all it would take) to vote Democrat.

More people than you know who would vote for Kerry don't buy anything he or the current party is selling. That much is obvious.

Besides the fact that the matter is far more than just a matter of population density, but location, and the distance to the polling place.

And while it isn't a good thing that there are such lines, but it is unavoidable, espescially when people who live in cities tend to vote later in the day, say the evening about, while suburbanites vote earlier.

This is a complex and strange problem, and it's nowhere near as simple as it is made out to be.
That still doesn't answer a 8 hour waiting line. 1 hour, maybe, 2 tops. Not 8.

Besides the fact that the matter is far more than just a matter of population density, but location, and the distance to the polling place.

And while it isn't a good thing that there are such lines, but it is unavoidable, espescially when people who live in cities tend to vote later in the day, say the evening about, while suburbanites vote earlier.

This is a complex and strange problem, and it's nowhere near as simple as it is made out to be.


You know something, Mom 'n Pop restaurants have the brain power to evaluate when the busy periods are and to staff their business appropriately.

Why can't election officials?

Is it unavoidable that there will be a rush to the polls at the end of the usual workday hours? yes.

Is it impossible to plan for such a rush to be planned for and handled efficiently? No.

Hell, you've been having elections for centuries. It's not like any of this is a suprise! If that were the case then this would have been a problem at each and every urban polling location. It wasn't. So clearly the problems that DID occur were either the result of gross ineptitude, or were a matter of design. Either of those scenarios should be unacceptable.

Unless Republicans make the democrats live in cities, that is.
THAT"S IT! What a great idea! :D

First rule of Campaigning (to appear as a nice, likeable guy):

Let your minions say the bad things and make accusations of wrongdoing.
Smile, and say nice things yourself.

Otherwise, people who you are trying to pull into your constituency will think you're an asshole.

Stop trying to think like a Democrat, and think like someone who is trying to persuade just a few more voters (that's all it would take) to vote Democrat.

More people than you know who would vote for Kerry don't buy anything he or the current party is selling. That much is obvious.

Clearly I cannot be bothered to "think like a Democrat" given that I have no partisan affiliation with political entities in another country. So, first you say HE is making rude comments which aren't supported by the article, and now you claim that his minions are without presenting that as part of your initial complaint.

Now, are you complaining that he follows the same First Rule as the Republicans? Sorry, but that seems to make YOU the partisan hypocrite on this issue given that this is - as you note - the cardinal rule of ALL candidates in the electoral process.

But don't try to seque this into an argument on the perception of the Democratic Party as a whole. That is not what the thread is about nor is it germaine to the attack you have levelled against Kerry with as little substantiation as the initial report's article title.

You know something, Mom 'n Pop restaurants have the brain power to evaluate when the busy periods are and to staff their business appropriately.

Why can't election officials?

Is it unavoidable that there will be a rush to the polls at the end of the usual workday hours? yes.

Is it impossible to plan for such a rush to be planned for and handled efficiently? No.

Hell, you've been having elections for centuries. It's not like any of this is a suprise! If that were the case then this would have been a problem at each and every urban polling location. It wasn't. So clearly the problems that DID occur were either the result of gross ineptitude, or were a matter of design. Either of those scenarios should be unacceptable.


You also don't magically get poll workers out of the blue. I remember in Ohio the boards of elections had a rough time finding sufficient poll workers. Even with the $115 dollar for a half day pay.

I'm saying that you are oversimplifying the problem, as am I. It's a extremely large problem, and there is no magic pill.

While we should work to fix it, it won't be fixed, that's my point.

Is it that cities that attract Democrats, or does living on top of each other in a city make sensible people turn into Democrats?
It's BOTH.

Cities offer better freebies for mooches, and misery loves company. ;)

The ratio of registered voters who live in a particular precinct to voting machines is not a secret prior to the election. This number is much higher than the actual number of people who end up voting, since turnout is never 100 percent.

Both sides have observers present through the planning process.

No complaints prior to the election? Why not?

So you are saying that "most people" are too stupid to understand the difference between the process and the outcome?

That's pretty sad.

It's like saying that you can't complain about a badly officiated game even if one team dominated the other and the blown calls wouldn't have affected the outcome.

The problems with the officiating still existed and should still be addressed.
I whole-heartedly agree, Zepp. This is something that has been in the "pending" file for many, many years. The voting process in the US needs reform. However, not everyone is a college graduate: "According to new tables released on the Internet, titled Educational Attainment in the United States: March 2001 and March 2002, more than one-quarter (27 percent) of adults age 25 and older had at least a bachelor's degree in 2002." ( http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/education/000818.html )

This means that, at least in 2002, about 3/4 of the US population were NOT college graduates. I'm definitely NOT saying that most people are too stupid to make this sort of distinction. All I'm saying is that the distinction between task and process is a rather fine distinction to make for most people. There are other ways of addressing the issue which would be much more clear.

Is it that cities that attract Democrats, or does living on top of each other in a city make sensible people turn into Democrats?
ROFL!!! Well, I suspect, although I cannot prove, that many more people who live in urban areas have a tendency to be less self-reliant than those who live in rural areas; they may indeed see greater need for governmental assistance. Please don't beat me up over this, since it's just a supposition. :)

THAT"S IT! What a great idea! :D

Yes, all the Democrats can move into the city, and we will send all of you republicans out to reservations in the wilderness.

Our country could progress, and you guys could make up your own backwards government.

And where in that article exactly does he "backhand the legitimacy" of the current administration?
Hell! Virtually everything the guy has said since the election has been a swipe at the current Administration, Zepp, other than his concession speech perhaps. :headbang:

You also don't magically get poll workers out of the blue. I remember in Ohio the boards of elections had a rough time finding sufficient poll workers. Even with the $115 dollar for a half day pay.

I'm saying that you are oversimplifying the problem, as am I. It's a extremely large problem, and there is no magic pill.

While we should work to fix it, it won't be fixed, that's my point.

Granted there will never be perfection, but there is a long way between what happened this time around and that lofty goal.

And the issue here seems to be that the thread author is denigrating Kerry for daring to want to work to fix it. Do you think that Democrats should not want to see a better run election next time around simply because they lost this one? Because that seems to be the premise offered.

ROFL!!! Well, I suspect, although I cannot prove, that many more people who live in urban areas have a tendency to be less self-reliant than those who live in rural areas; they may indeed see greater need for governmental assistance. Please don't beat me up over this, since it's just a supposition. :)

Yeah, those rural farmers really know a whole lot about not being reliant on the government. Those rural towns with a cop for every 200 people know all about self reliance.

Rural areas have been milking the urban areas through government assistance for a very long time now.

That still doesn't answer a 8 hour waiting line. 1 hour, maybe, 2 tops. Not 8.
If 90% of the voters show up at lunchtime, of course the waits will be long. How do you plan for that? I'm sure the limiting factor is the number of machines available. You can't make machines appear out of thin air, nor should you provide enough machines to allow 100% of the precinct to vote at the same time with only 2 hour waits.

Hell! Virtually everything the guy has said since the election has been a swipe at the current Administration, Zepp, other than his concession speech perhaps. :headbang:

Examples?

Hell! Virtually everything the guy has said since the election has been a swipe at the current Administration, Zepp, other than his concession speech perhaps. :headbang:

Isn't that the job of the leader of the minority party? Did you fault the Republican leadership for playing that role when Clinton was in power?


Oh c'mon - the party in power always wants to whitewash things to make themselves apear infallible, and the opposing power gets their jabs in. It's the nature of the game. You can't just win by scoring points in an election year, you have to get your shots in all along the way.


As Jean Chretien once said:

"The art of politics is learning to walk with your back to the wall, your elbows high, and a smile on your face. It's a survival game played under the glare of lights. If you don't learn that you're quickly finished. It's damn tough and you can't complain; you just have to take it and give it back. The press wants to get you. The opposition wants to get you. Even some of the bureaucrats want to get you. They all may have an interest in making you look bad and they all have ambitions of their own."

Partisan pointing of fingers at only one side for doing it serves no purpose except to make you look hypocritical. Next time the Dems take power the Republicans will be doing exactly the same damn thing.

I especially liked his complete lack of a reference to the NAACP in Ohio officially paying people to register voters. Paying them with crack, that is, obtained by NAACP officials.

Nice job there, Democrats. Nice to see the woman who organized that admitted to it on the news. Nice to see the Democrats not say a single word about it - not even a denial.

Is Kerry committed to stopping this sort of problem within his own organization? Haven't heard him say it.

Maybe the NAACP is actually a Republican front organization dedicated to oppressing black people through distribution of crack.

Yes, all the Democrats can move into the city, and we will send all of you republicans out to reservations in the wilderness.

Our country could progress, and you guys could make up your own backwards government.
Works for me! After a couple of generations, "Republica" would take over, anyway. :D

... the party in power always wants to whitewash things to make themselves apear infallible, and the opposing power gets their jabs in. It's the nature of the game. You can't just win by scoring points in an election year, you have to get your shots in all along the way.
Agreed ... with few reservations. :)

If 90% of the voters show up at lunchtime, of course the waits will be long. How do you plan for that? I'm sure the limiting factor is the number of machines available. You can't make machines appear out of thin air, nor should you provide enough machines to allow 100% of the precinct to vote at the same time with only 2 hour waits.


You plan for that the same way McDonald plans for the fact that 70% of their business occurs within a few hours of the day: lunch and supper. They have more cash registers than they need for the slow times, and bring in extra staff for the busy periods.

Now, if you are suggesting that elections are so minor an issue that the expense of more voting machines isn't worth it, then you have a very jaded view on the value of the very democracy you would probably swear to defend with your life.

This administration is spending $40 Million on a party to celebrate their win. Combined expenditures of monies during the campaign season reached into the Billions.

I guess it's all about where your priorities lie....

You plan for that the same way McDonald plans for the fact that 70% of their business occurs within a few hours of the day: lunch and supper. They have more cash registers than they need for the slow times, and bring in extra staff for the busy periods.

Now, if you are suggesting that elections are so minor an issue that the expense of more voting machines isn't worth it, then you have a very jaded view on the value of the very democracy you would probably swear to defend with your life.

This administration is spending $40 Million on a party to celebrate their win. Combined expenditures of monies during the campaign season reached into the Billions.

I guess it's all about where your priorities lie....

The Democratic Party had observers in place *prior* to the election. They knew the ratios and traffic estimates as well as anyone else.

So why didn't they protest beforehand?

If 90% of the voters show up at lunchtime, of course the waits will be long. How do you plan for that? I'm sure the limiting factor is the number of machines available. You can't make machines appear out of thin air, nor should you provide enough machines to allow 100% of the precinct to vote at the same time with only 2 hour waits.
That is a rather farfetched explanation: 90% of the voters at the same time?
Please. :rolleyes:

Even if that was true they should have been able to vote in under 4 hours. Not 8. It doesn't take a whole workday to vote unless there is a serious shortage of voting booth/machines.

It's BOTH.

Cities offer better freebies for mooches, and misery loves company. ;)

So ... people in rural areas never get on welfare, eh?

Riiiiiight.

I especially liked his complete lack of a reference to the NAACP in Ohio officially paying people to register voters. Paying them with crack, that is, obtained by NAACP officials.

Nice job there, Democrats. Nice to see the woman who organized that admitted to it on the news. Nice to see the Democrats not say a single word about it - not even a denial.

Is Kerry committed to stopping this sort of problem within his own organization? Haven't heard him say it.

Maybe the NAACP is actually a Republican front organization dedicated to oppressing black people through distribution of crack.

He hardly brought up any specifics John - especially regarding the various arrests and charges around the country from various voter fraud shenanigans. Did you also want him to discuss the Republican group in the SouthWest that was paid to register voters but who only actually filed the paperwork for Republicans and tossed out the Democrats leaving many Democrats thinking they were registered when they weren't?

Besides, surely you are aware that voter registration is NOT the purview of the political party? Yes they get involved in registereing voters, but so can anyone who feels like taking an interest.

Voter registration is but a single issue relating to how the election as a whole is managed. Toss in voter identification issues, campaign finance issues, polling issues, counting issues, and there are a lot of things that he could have mentioned rather than one single case that you are particularly fond of.

For someone accusing Kerry of "taking backhand swipes", you sure seemt o go for them yourself with the "nice job there, Democrats" cracks.



Don't dish out what you aren't willing to take John....

Well, part of the problem as I understand it is that voter turnout was also a lot higher than anyone thought it was going to be in the 2004 election.

And it is a little hypocritical that Democrats will eagerly point out any election irregularity that hurts them, but remain strangely silent when such things work in their favor.

Well, part of the problem as I understand it is that voter turnout was also a lot higher than anyone thought it was going to be in the 2004 election.

And it is a little hypocritical that Democrats will eagerly point out any election irregularity that hurts them, but remain strangely silent when such things work in their favor.



Well, they just assume - correctly - that the Republicans will do that for them. Did you hear many Republican's complaining about the cases that worked in their favour?

No?


Me either.


'tis a two way street. But maybe between them they'll holster the rhetoric long enough to actually work on the problems too.

He hardly brought up any specifics John - especially regarding the various arrests and charges around the country from various voter fraud shenanigans. Did you also want him to discuss the Republican group in the SouthWest that was paid to register voters but who only actually filed the paperwork for Republicans and tossed out the Democrats leaving many Democrats thinking they were registered when they weren't?

Besides, surely you are aware that voter registration is NOT the purview of the political party? Yes they get involved in registereing voters, but so can anyone who feels like taking an interest.

Voter registration is but a single issue relating to how the election as a whole is managed. Toss in voter identification issues, campaign finance issues, polling issues, counting issues, and there are a lot of things that he could have mentioned rather than one single case that you are particularly fond of.

For someone accusing Kerry of "taking backhand swipes", you sure seemt o go for them yourself with the "nice job there, Democrats" cracks.

Don't dish out what you aren't willing to take John....

Voting machines, and the lack thereof, are not the purview of the political party, either. But you wouldn't know that from the Democratic Party. You would think that like the butterfly ballot (a ballot designed by Democrats), it's a Republican plot to make the election unfair.

Hardly.

Kerry is making a backhanded comment unless he prefaces with an unconditional statement to the effect that "it is not the fault of the Republicans - it is everyone's fault".

I'm more than willing to make that leap. But it seems that neither party is willing to do so. To either party, the machinations of the other party are the only crimes and injustices.

I'm more than willing to point out what Kerry missed.

More people than you know who would vote for Kerry don't buy anything he or the current party is selling. That much is obvious.
Bush voters got up early, got in, voted, got out, had lunch, and got on with their lives. :cool:

Bush Haters got nauseous, held their heads in their hands for long periods, and once they, finally, voted for Kerry, needed time to regain their composure, before exiting the polling booths. :headbang:

They could have had three times the number of voting machines per capita that the Republican areas had and it wouldn't have made much of a difference. The kerry voters STILL have indentations from holding their noses. ;)

You plan for that the same way McDonald plans for the fact that 70% of their business occurs within a few hours of the day: lunch and supper. They have more cash registers than they need for the slow times, and bring in extra staff for the busy periods.

Now, if you are suggesting that elections are so minor an issue that the expense of more voting machines isn't worth it, then you have a very jaded view on the value of the very democracy you would probably swear to defend with your life.
Typical liberal argument...

People pay to eat at McDonald's. They don't to vote. BUT, who cares... It's only the money of the REAL tax payers (which excludes the majority of Dems), right...?

That is a rather farfetched explanation: 90% of the voters at the same time?
Please. :rolleyes:

Even if that was true they should have been able to vote in under 4 hours. Not 8. It doesn't take a whole workday to vote unless there is a serious shortage of voting booth/machines.
Why can you say that. Do you make the decisions on voting machine allocation and precinct staffing?


The proper answer is to set a goal for number of hours to vote at a given capacity. I think 100% of the voters present is too much, 10% is probably still too high. After all, extra voting machines represent waste. Settle on a realistic capacity and buy the machines. That's not hard and it's probably exactly what's done.

The county can't help it if everyone show up between the end of Jerry Springer and the beginning of Judge Judy. It's even more helpless if they decide to leave because they want to see the beginning of All My Children.

So ... people in rural areas never get on welfare, eh?

Riiiiiight.
I'll bet far more federal dollars go to entitlement programs in urban areas than ever went to price supports and rural welfare. Per capita, of course.

Well, they just assume - correctly - that the Republicans will do that for them. Did you hear many Republican's complaining about the cases that worked in their favour?

No?


Me either.


'tis a two way street. But maybe between them they'll holster the rhetoric long enough to actually work on the problems too.


No, of course not. But I don't hear the cries of fraud from losing Republicans like I do from losing Democrats, either. Oh wait, that's because the Democrats really took it on the chin this year! They lost just about everything, didn't they?

Which, in the minds of most people, Zepp, amounts to the same thing. He criticised the "process" in this election, which just happens to be the one he lost.
Regardless of the outcome, I think that there needs to be some changes so that everyone in America votes in the same way, and everyone is able to vote without countless hours of waiting time. As a relatively unbiased outsider, I think its safe to say republicans should want some reform of the voting process too. I mean lets face it; nobody wants to wait in line, even to fulfill their civic duty.

Why can you say that. Do you make the decisions on voting machine allocation and precinct staffing?


The proper answer is to set a goal for number of hours to vote at a given capacity. I think 100% of the voters present is too much, 10% is probably still too high. After all, extra voting machines represent waste. Settle on a realistic capacity and buy the machines. That's not hard and it's probably exactly what's done.

I don't doubt that. The question is: where all the machines allocated there on the day of the election? It's all well and good to figure you'll need 10 machines. It's another matter if you recieve only 2. That's where the fraud allegations come in.

The county can't help it if everyone show up between the end of Jerry Springer and the beginning of Judge Judy. It's even more helpless if they decide to leave because they want to see the beginning of All My Children.
Even for large county, it never takes 8 goddamn fucking hours for everyone to vote if they all come at the same bloody time. 8 hours! 8! I dare you to stand around for 8 hours doing nothing. Even with 100% of the voters coming at the same minute and lining up to vote, and with everyone taking 5 minutes to think about their vote, it wouldn't take 8 stupid hours for everyone to vote if there's not a shortage of machines.

8 hours! Think about what it represent in a 14 hours window of voting. You have to get up early to vote. You can forget the joke about voting often, just getting in 1 vote requires you to get up at the crack of dawn.

8 hours is just preposterous.

(If you think I'm repeating 8 hours too much it's simply because I can't get over the sheer immensity of the delay.)

I don't doubt that. The question is: where all the machines allocated there on the day of the election? It's all well and good to figure you'll need 10 machines. It's another matter if you recieve only 2. That's where the fraud allegations come in.

Okay, who is responsible for the precinct? The county, that's who. Not the federal government, not even the state government. There are precinct captains and poll workers that assume the responsibility to make sure everything runs properly. I think it is just a handy ploy to cry fraud. The real cry should be to fire the incompentent poll workers. Can't do that, though. It's a patronage position. Dems screwing Dems. I would love it, if it didn't sound so homopolitical.l

Even for large county, it never takes 8 goddamn fucking hours for everyone to vote if they all come at the same bloody time. 8 hours! 8! I dare you to stand around for 8 hours doing nothing. Even with 100% of the voters coming at the same minute and lining up to vote, and with everyone taking 5 minutes to think about their vote, it wouldn't take 8 stupid hours for everyone to vote if there's not a shortage of machines.

8 hours! Think about what it represent in a 14 hours window of voting. You have to get up early to vote. You can forget the joke about voting often, just getting in 1 vote requires you to get up at the crack of dawn.

8 hours is just preposterous.

(If you think I'm repeating 8 hours too much it's simply because I can't get over the sheer immensity of the delay.)

Sure, eight hours is a lot. Who's responsible for having the polls open and ready to go? The county government that runs the precinct. Again Dems screwing Dems, but they won't solve the problem because it's patronage.

I'd just like to put my two cents in here, and say that Bush has not been democratically elected. The majority of people didn't vote for him. Heck, the majority of American people didn't vote for him! The majority of American eligible voters didn't vote for him! He has the lowest approval rating of a returning president EVER. So when he claims to be democratically elected, you can all sit back and smile, because he wasn't. He got 60,608,582 votes. That leaves 6,447,035,738 people who didn't vote for him.

You do the maths.

Voting machines, and the lack thereof, are not the purview of the political party, either. But you wouldn't know that from the Democratic Party. You would think that like the butterfly ballot (a ballot designed by Democrats), it's a Republican plot to make the election unfair.


Whose responsibility is it? The electoral office, and those members are definitely allied to a political party. The US has biased people organising the election everywhere, and that is an extremely broken model. So broken that Jimmy Carter, head of an organisation that monitors elections worldwide, stated that Florida could not have a fair election in 2004.

And the use of the butterfly ballot in Florida in 2000 was clearly designed to benefit the republicans, whoever designed the the original ballot. It worked, too.

Whose responsibility is it? The electoral office, and those members are definitely allied to a political party. The US has biased people organising the election everywhere, and that is an extremely broken model. So broken that Jimmy Carter, head of an organisation that monitors elections worldwide, stated that Florida could not have a fair election in 2004.

And the use of the butterfly ballot in Florida in 2000 was clearly designed to benefit the republicans, whoever designed the the original ballot. It worked, too.
Providing adequate resources to vote is the responsibility of the county and the state. The county has the bulk of the responsibility, though.

This is priceless, though. Butterfly ballots -> Designed by Democrats -> To benefit Republicans. Just another example of homopolitics in the Democratic party.

I'd just like to put my two cents in here, and say that Bush has not been democratically elected. The majority of people didn't vote for him. Heck, the majority of American people didn't vote for him! The majority of American eligible voters didn't vote for him! He has the lowest approval rating of a returning president EVER. So when he claims to be democratically elected, you can all sit back and smile, because he wasn't. He got 60,608,582 votes. That leaves 6,447,035,738 people who didn't vote for him.

You do the maths.
Did anyone else notice that the number of folks who voted for Kerry is conspicuously missing from this equasion...?

People who chose to write in Mickey Mouse, Michael Jackson, and Michael Moore, don't count!

People who voted for a candidate who doesn't stand a chance of winning, don't count!

People who register, but don't vote..., don't count!

...And people who don't bother to even register in order to avoid drawing jury duty, or out of laziness..., don't count!

...So stop counting them. We have ONE math in the U.S.

Unlike Canada which seems to have MORE than one... Keep your mathS away from our 2+2=4 election system.

So ... people in rural areas never get on welfare, eh?

Riiiiiight.
Even mooches want the best of both worlds, eh...?

Did anyone else notice that the number of folks who voted for Kerry is conspicuously missing from this equasion...?
[deleted text]
Unlike Canada which seems to have MORE than one... Keep your mathS away from our 2+2=4 election system.
Look at the size of the total number. That's why I didn't bother to answer. They seem to think 6 billion have a say in who is elected President in the US. Definitely out of touch with reality, let alone mathematics.

Second, I think the weird math is something metric.

Unlike Canada which seems to have MORE than one... Keep your mathS away from our 2+2=4 election system.
care to explain that?

voting machines? in england we have great voting machines - they're called a pen and paper. it is not hard and it makes it perfectly obvious if someone has got it wrong. there were no 'hanging xs' in our last general election

voting machines? in england we have great voting machines - they're called a pen and paper. it is not hard and it makes it perfectly obvious if someone has got it wrong. there were no 'hanging xs' in our last general election
Are they machine counted?

Are they machine counted?


nope - hand counted by real humans

nope - hand counted by real humans
How many votes are cast at a precinct, or whatever you call the voting location?

In some of our Democratic precincts, I don't know if we could find enough poll workers that can count past 10, let alone add a few subtotals.

How many votes are cast at a precinct, or whatever you call the voting location?

the average is about 5500 per electoral ward but obviously in populous urban areas that will be highly increased. but in a country of 40 million potential voters (1/5 of US?) our counts are usually coming in by midnight and the results are almost always in by 8 am the next morning.

John Kerry speaks out again:


Kerry Criticizes Election Outcome

Mon Jan 17,10:51 PM ET U.S. National - AP



BOSTON - Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), in some of his most pointed public comments yet about the presidential election, invoked Martin Luther King Jr.'s legacy on Monday as he criticized President Bush (news - web sites) and decried reports of voter disenfranchisement.

The Massachusetts Democrat, Bush's challenger in November, spoke at Boston's annual Martin Luther King Day Breakfast. He reiterated that he decided not to challenge the election results, but "thousands of people were suppressed in the effort to vote."

"Voting machines were distributed in uneven ways. In Democratic districts, it took people four, five, eleven hours to vote, while Republicans (went) through in 10 minutes — same voting machines, same process, our America," he said.

In his comments, Kerry also compared the democracy-building efforts in Iraq (news - web sites) with voting in the U.S., saying that Americans had their names purged from voting lists and were kept from casting ballots.

"In a nation which is willing to spend several hundred million dollars in Iraq to bring them democracy, we cannot tolerate that too many people here in America were denied that democracy," Kerry said.

Voting irregularities in Ohio drove primarily Democratic challenges to the Nov. 2 election, but Congress eventually affirmed President Bush the winner by a slim electoral vote count of 286-251 — plus a single vote cast by a Minnesota elector for Kerry's running mate, former Sen. John Edwards.



Like Algore, Kerry can't handle reality.

If you don't like us bitching about it, stop bringing it up. Or do you like people to not think highly of you?

Did anyone else notice that the number of folks who voted for Kerry is conspicuously missing from this equasion...?

...And people who don't bother to even register in order to avoid drawing jury duty, or out of laziness..., don't count!


Actually, voter rolls aren't used for jury duty lists anymore. Since the computerization of DMVs (Departments of Motor Vehicles) and taxation, it's been income tax and DMV tallies...

If you don't like us bitching about it, stop bringing it up. Or do you like people to not think highly of you?

I think pretty highly of him. At least HE has a modicum of sense! :headbang:

the average is about 5500 per electoral ward but obviously in populous urban areas that will be highly increased. but in a country of 40 million potential voters (1/5 of US?) our counts are usually coming in by midnight and the results are almost always in by 8 am the next morning.
Well, the UK hasn't had the UN observing elections, as far as I remember. I wouldn't mind seeing votes hand-counted, either.

Like I posted earler, a lot of the Democratic precincts couldn't find workers that can count past 10, let alone add up subtotals to 10,000.

Like I posted earler, a lot of the Democratic precincts couldn't find workers that can count past 10, let alone add up subtotals to 10,000.


Oh, I see: You're just a troll.


Thanks for clearing that up for everyone.

Well, the UK hasn't had the UN observing elections, as far as I remember. I wouldn't mind seeing votes hand-counted, either.

Like I posted earler, a lot of the Democratic precincts couldn't find workers that can count past 10, let alone add up subtotals to 10,000.


who needs to count past ten? you count ten votes into a pile - then you count another ten. til you get ten piles.

repeat till you've got all those pesky votes counted and remember to keep score with a pencil.

did the UN really monitor the U.S. elections?

Oh, I see: You're just a troll.


Thanks for clearing that up for everyone.
Say what you will. If hand counts are working in the UK, why couldn't they work in the US?

My reasoning is that poll workers are patronage positions. Democratic precincts aren't in the most highly educated sections of the country. So the patronage workers that would be counting the votes by hand aren't the kind that would be able to handle complicated things like sorting the different races into subtotals and then adding up the subtotals to come up with a correct total. Machines do that far more reliably when faced with that kind of competition.

Now, if the Democrats were willing to put some test for qualifications on their appointments, things might be different. A simple math quiz would be enough. But that would "discriminate" and would be shouted down.

who needs to count past ten? you count ten votes into a pile - then you count another ten. til you get ten piles.

repeat till you've got all those pesky votes counted and remember to keep score with a pencil.

did the UN really monitor the U.S. elections?

But you have many races on one ballot. That takes some thought.

Yes, the UN did come to monitor our last Presidential election. I'm not sure if it was just a few states or if it was more comprehensive. It was too embarassing.

He got 60,608,582 votes. That leaves 6,447,035,738 people who didn't vote for him.

You do the maths. (Underline added, by R.I. for clarification.)

Unlike Canada which seems to have MORE than one... Keep your mathS away from our 2+2=4 election system.
care to explain that?
Self explanatory... "maths"... ;)

Why not have some fun as I make my point...? :p

donisia]Did anyone else notice that the number of folks who voted for Kerry is conspicuously missing from this equasion...?
[deleted text]
Unlike Canada which seems to have MORE than one... Keep your mathS away from our 2+2=4 election system.
Look at the size of the total number. That's why I didn't bother to answer. They seem to think 6 billion have a say in who is elected President in the US. Definitely out of touch with reality, let alone mathematics.

Second, I think the weird math is something metric.[/QUOTE]
Probably ONE of those many new liberal mathS, the mediocretric system, the morontric system..., or the myopytric system... :confused: Hehehe... :p So many maths..., so little logic... :rolleyes:

Self explanatory... "maths"... ;)

Why not have some fun as I make my point...? :p
oh right! :headbang:

Carry on with the mocking :p

there was corruption on both sides of the fence, but I don't think there was enough of it to have any serrious affect on the election results.

you will always see corruption in politics. some people feel so strongly about their ideals that they surely wont allow a silly little thing called morality to get in their way.

This is not just a matter of complaining about the outcome. The fact is, since the very first day that people were allowed to cast votes (some states allowed early voting), there were problems reported. Computer errors deleted votes, registrations collected by organizations that had NOT revealed a party affilation to people threw out opposition registration, the amount of voting equipment was not distributed proportional to the population of the area. These errors can and probably did hurt BOTH parties. Unless we can say that everything went as it was supposed to there is always reason to question the outcome when the election is so close. Face it, if the situation were reversed Republicans would have wanted to fix the irregularities there too. Even so, it is the interest of the winner to feel that his victory was proper, so there's really no reason not to support reform.

You can joke if you want, but making cracks about education levels/work ethics of people in democratic districts doesn't address the issue at hand (nevermind that most low wage work is far more demanding than any cushy desk job, and education level and leftist leanings are highly correlated).

The polling places (in Ohio) were run by democrats, funded by democrats and mandated by democrats. This isn't a conspiracy of any sort. I'm always amazed that each side is willing to question the entire process if they don't win. No one worried about voter fraud in 1992 or 1996. Why? Because there was a clear winner and it happened to be the left's guy who won. The process is not perfect. The constitution doesn't mandate that elections be perfect, only that the right to vote is upheld.

I am always amazed that when most states have early voting, people wait and wait and then complain when they have to stand on queue to vote.

One suggestion is to have the election over a period of weeks, not in a single day. India, the largest participatory democracy on the planet manages this. Low voter turnout for them is 60%.

This is not just a matter of complaining about the outcome. The fact is, since the very first day that people were allowed to cast votes (some states allowed early voting), there were problems reported. Computer errors deleted votes, registrations collected by organizations that had NOT revealed a party affilation to people threw out opposition registration, the amount of voting equipment was not distributed proportional to the population of the area. These errors can and probably did hurt BOTH parties. Unless we can say that everything went as it was supposed to there is always reason to question the outcome when the election is so close. Face it, if the situation were reversed Republicans would have wanted to fix the irregularities there too. Even so, it is the interest of the winner to feel that his victory was proper, so there's really no reason not to support reform.

You can joke if you want, but making cracks about education levels/work ethics of people in democratic districts doesn't address the issue at hand (nevermind that most low wage work is far more demanding than any cushy desk job, and education level and leftist leanings are highly correlated).
And you know who is responsible for solving these problems? The local elections officials. If they had a shred of competence, they would have been able to get enough machines, provide enough help, and make things work. Why did we see the problems primarily in Democratic districts? Like I said earlier, the jobs are patronage jobs. The qualifications aren't measured in terms of intelligence, only loyalty. So the Dems continue to screw themselves.

Self explanatory... "maths"... ;)

Why not have some fun as I make my point...? :p

Your point is pretty crappy as they're BOTH right, just that "math" is an informal American form of the word. You know, not all people use British English. Bah, some people even mix different English dialects.

THUS, on ALL ACCOUNTS, your point is INVALIDATED.