NationStates Jolt Archive

Whether or not your guy won or lost, you have got to admit that voter discrepancies in the last Presidential election are unnerving. Every vote counts right? Not really and what the heck can WE do about it. It doesn't seem a high priority for the current administration, but perhaps that's because they won. But you know what... next time it could happen to you. So was it a conspiracy or just an incredible amount of error? Who cares! But let's not let this happen again.

Let me give you some facts that are scary and somehow don't seem to matter (if not only to two US Senators):

Voting machine malfunctions in several precincts in Pennsylvania forced voters to vote "backwards"
Bush gets extra 3893 votes in Gahanna Precinct in Ohio's Franklin County - only 638 total voters cast ballots in that precinct
10,000 more votes than voters recorded in Nebraska County
Over 50,000 votes not counted in Democratic Indiana County due to electronic voting machine "glitch"
In Florida, electronic voting machines subtracted about 70,000 votes from vote totals in Broward County and by about 8400 in Orange County
Over 11,000 more votes for President recorded in North Carolina County than were actually cast
More voting irregularities in Arizona include display of large photo of President Bush at polling site, understaffed polling location leading to extra long lines/delays and a closed polling site in an area with a large Mexican-American population
GOP in South Dakota intimidates Native American voters by writing down their license plate numbers - judge orders them to stop the practice

Read more here: http://vote2004.eriposte.com/


So what can you do about it? Write a letter to your Senators, Congressman, or write the President and demand integrity for our God given American Right to vote in a fair and honest election. Google search your chosen elected official, you can find their email or mailing address to write to them and ask for the things that you want from your country. It's your job to tell them and their job to hear your voice.

how many of those mistakes were made by people that dont know how to vote properly? Do you take that into account? If you cant learn how to vote then you get what you pay for so to speak.

Voting irregularities are part and parcel of every American election. I dont know, but I would bet they are part of every election everywhere that consisted of more than 3 votes. If anything, things are getting much better. At least the dead dont get out of their graves to vote as often as before.

how exactly does one vote backwards?

how exactly does one vote backwards?Diebold voting systems record your vote and select the opposite.

If this is all true then God help america.

And I think it could be.

Voting discrepancies? Check out the British election and see how many discrepancies you can find?

In fact I really don't understand America. Why the hell is nothing being done?

We are talking about an obscene irregularity due to the newly introduced electronic voting system.

The Diebold voting machines are easily tampered with, making massive vote fraud simple and undetectable. These machines are also apparently less reliable than the old-fashioned paper and mechanical voting machines. With electronic voting machines, there's no paper, so no recount is possible. You have no way of being sure you voted for who you think you did.

The three companies who make the majority of all voting machines (Diebold, ES&S, and Sequoia) refuse to allow security experts analyze the software to see if it is secure, however, recent leaks from Diebold have allowed some of their code to be analyzed, to dismaying results.

Hmmm...

Just wondering, uhm...

If a democrat wins the next election, and someone finds this voting problem has arisen yet again, will be there as much of a fuss? I mean, you'll have gotten what you wanted.

Is it about the rights, or about what you want?

Hmmm...

Just wondering, uhm...

If a democrat wins the next election, and someone finds this voting problem has arisen yet again, will be there as much of a fuss? I mean, you'll have gotten what you wanted.

Is it about the rights, or about what you want?That's my point! We need secure elections regardless of the outcome. We are a democracy and without the people's voice we are nothing. I don't care who wins, so long as it is what the people have chosen. And without that paper trail, we are in the hands of corporate America.

Whether or not your guy won or lost, you have got to admit that voter discrepancies in the last Presidential election are unnerving. Every vote counts right? Not really and what the heck can WE do about it. It doesn't seem a high priority for the current administration, but perhaps that's because they won. But you know what... next time it could happen to you. So was it a conspiracy or just an incredible amount of error? Who cares! But let's not let this happen again.

Let me give you some facts that are scary and somehow don't seem to matter (if not only to two US Senators):

Voting machine malfunctions in several precincts in Pennsylvania forced voters to vote "backwards"
Bush gets extra 3893 votes in Gahanna Precinct in Ohio's Franklin County - only 638 total voters cast ballots in that precinct
10,000 more votes than voters recorded in Nebraska County
Over 50,000 votes not counted in Democratic Indiana County due to electronic voting machine "glitch"
In Florida, electronic voting machines subtracted about 70,000 votes from vote totals in Broward County and by about 8400 in Orange County
Over 11,000 more votes for President recorded in North Carolina County than were actually cast
More voting irregularities in Arizona include display of large photo of President Bush at polling site, understaffed polling location leading to extra long lines/delays and a closed polling site in an area with a large Mexican-American population
GOP in South Dakota intimidates Native American voters by writing down their license plate numbers - judge orders them to stop the practice

Read more here: http://vote2004.eriposte.com/

So what can you do about it? Write a letter to your Senators, Congressman, or write the President and demand integrity for our God given American Right to vote in a fair and honest election. Google search your chosen elected official, you can find their email or mailing address to write to them and ask for the things that you want from your country. It's your job to tell them and their job to hear your voice.
I hate to be the one to spoil all your childhood illusions, but there have always been "voting irregularities." Some of the worst in US history were in Chicago when Richard Daly was Mayor. Another big city "boss" was "Boss" Tweed in NYC. The alleged voting irregularities during the last Presidential election were minor and in most probability would have have affected the outcome.

I hate to be the one to spoil all your childhood illusions, but there have always been "voting irregularities." Some of the worst in US history were in Chicago when Richard Daly was Mayor. Another big city "boss" was "Boss" Tweed in NYC. The alleged voting irregularities during the last Presidential election were minor and in most probability would have have affected the outcome.*Ad Hominem* (that means you lose your credibility because you are insulting)
(ok, and you are not sticking to my topic of electronic voting) :rolleyes:

Whether or not your guy won or lost, you have got to admit that voter discrepancies in the last Presidential election are unnerving. Every vote counts right? Not really and what the heck can WE do about it. It doesn't seem a high priority for the current administration, but perhaps that's because they won. But you know what... next time it could happen to you. So was it a conspiracy or just an incredible amount of error? Who cares! But let's not let this happen again.

Let me give you some facts that are scary and somehow don't seem to matter (if not only to two US Senators):

Voting machine malfunctions in several precincts in Pennsylvania forced voters to vote "backwards"
Bush gets extra 3893 votes in Gahanna Precinct in Ohio's Franklin County - only 638 total voters cast ballots in that precinct
10,000 more votes than voters recorded in Nebraska County
Over 50,000 votes not counted in Democratic Indiana County due to electronic voting machine "glitch"
In Florida, electronic voting machines subtracted about 70,000 votes from vote totals in Broward County and by about 8400 in Orange County
Over 11,000 more votes for President recorded in North Carolina County than were actually cast
More voting irregularities in Arizona include display of large photo of President Bush at polling site, understaffed polling location leading to extra long lines/delays and a closed polling site in an area with a large Mexican-American population
GOP in South Dakota intimidates Native American voters by writing down their license plate numbers - judge orders them to stop the practice

Read more here: http://vote2004.eriposte.com/


So what can you do about it? Write a letter to your Senators, Congressman, or write the President and demand integrity for our God given American Right to vote in a fair and honest election. Google search your chosen elected official, you can find their email or mailing address to write to them and ask for the things that you want from your country. It's your job to tell them and their job to hear your voice.
Interesting, it fails to mention the fraud in Madison and Milwaulkee, let alone good old Chicago. Washington state is another nexus of fraud.

*Ad Hominem* (that means you lose your credibility because you are insulting)
( shrug ) You mean just like you're insulting my intelligence? Kinda like that? :D

*Ad Hominem* (that means you lose your credibility because you are insulting)

No, ad hominem means that him calling you a child is lacking in credibility. The rest of the argument still holds.

*Ad Hominem* (that means you lose your credibility because you are insulting)


No one ever said you had to be nice to be honest. Ignoring people just because you don't like how they say something is willingly ignoring their argument. In other words just because some one calls me stupid doesn't mean I know what I'm talking about and he doesn't.

Ad Hominem Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives. Dictionary.com

No, ad hominem means that him calling you a child is lacking in credibility. The rest of the argument still holds.What argument? I am talking about Diebold machines. :p

"Voting machine malfunctions in several precincts in Pennsylvania forced voters to vote "backwards"
Bush gets extra 3893 votes in Gahanna Precinct in Ohio's Franklin County - only 638 total voters cast ballots in that precinct
10,000 more votes than voters recorded in Nebraska County
Over 50,000 votes not counted in Democratic Indiana County due to electronic voting machine "glitch"
In Florida, electronic voting machines subtracted about 70,000 votes from vote totals in Broward County and by about 8400 in Orange County
Over 11,000 more votes for President recorded in North Carolina County than were actually cast
More voting irregularities in Arizona include display of large photo of President Bush at polling site, understaffed polling location leading to extra long lines/delays and a closed polling site in an area with a large Mexican-American population
GOP in South Dakota intimidates Native American voters by writing down their license plate numbers - judge orders them to stop the practice"

I see no arguments that refute the original claims.

Claiming that election subterfuge has happened in the past is no excuse for it to be continued. Only the most cynical would respond to the current miscarriage of democracy with such a statement.

A simple solution would be to implement a paper record of all votes cast using these machines that could be visualy verified by the voter. Those paper records would then be counted to determine the winner of the election. The electronic machines would still serve their immediate function of expediency.

A simple solution would be to implement a paper record of all votes cast using these machines that could be visualy verified by the voter. Those paper records would then be counted to determine the winner of the election. The electronic machines would still serve their immediate function of expediency.
True, and another solution that would greatly reduce fraud would be using your driver's license as proof of identity, but for some reason the dems are fighting that particular measure tooth and nail. I wonder why?

I see no arguments that refute the original claims.
...
A simple solution would be to implement a paper record of all votes cast using these machines that could be visualy verified by the voter. Those paper records would then be counted to determine the winner of the election. The electronic machines would still serve their immediate function of expediency.Thank you.

My fellow Americans, this is a bipartisan issue.

Thank you.

My fellow Americans, this is a bipartisan issue.

Nah, just get rid of the whole electronic system. Go with paper ballots. And spoiled (i.e. those not properly filled out) should be disregarded.

Also, the penalty for election fraud should be life in prison.

That would clean the whole thing up nicely.

I went through that list of irregularities on the linked site. There was not a single mention of cases where the Democrat candidate profited by an error. The Republican candidate for governor in Washington State might wonder about the accuracy of the list, considering he's suing over a large number of ineligible voters that swayed the election in favor of the Democrat.

With such a large bias in reporting incidents that are only unfavorable to Democrats, I'd conclude the data is either made up, exaggerated, or offset by corresponding errors in favor of Democrats.

Maybe we could return the machines and help the deficit!

Maybe we could return the machines and help the deficit!

Nah, the deficit is part of our not so secret plan to wreck the chinese economy.

I went through that list of irregularities on the linked site. There was not a single mention of cases where the Democrat candidate profited by an error. The Republican candidate for governor in Washington State might wonder about the accuracy of the list, considering he's suing over a large number of ineligible voters that swayed the election in favor of the Democrat.

With such a large bias in reporting incidents that are only unfavorable to Democrats, I'd conclude the data is either made up, exaggerated, or offset by corresponding errors in favor of Democrats.Every vote should be counted. Every vote should have a paper trail. No one should be elected by error. Republican, Democrat, Satanist, I don't care who or what he/she/it is affiliated with... Our system is failing us. It needs to be put into legislation that every vote is secure and accounted for. As of now it is not.

I mean, is it really to much to ask our government for a receipt? You get a receipt anytime you make an electronic transaction right? At the bank, the gas pump, the market, McDonalds, and EVERYWHERE! Why? Because if you don't have a receipt, you have no proof of purchase. You could be charged too much or billed twice or charged for something you never purchased in the first place. Get it? It's tangible proof of what you wanted.

Now you can dismiss this issue as sour grapes for the dems or you can take a step back and actually see that this leaves room for political corruption, and that is death to a democracy. Do you want the government to control you? Or do you want to control the government? They work for us remember?

Every vote should be counted. Every vote should have a paper trail. No one should be elected by error. Republican, Democrat, Satanist, I don't care who or what he/she/it is affiliated with... Our system is failing us. It needs to be put into legislation that every vote is secure and accounted for. As of now it is not.


No, not every vote should be counted. Anyone too stupid to fill a ballot paper in should have their ballot thrown out.

Also, we need to address voter apathy in the US. The fastest way I can see to do this is term limits.

There've always been irregularities, as was stated - and we (collectively) even were aware of their nature, at times.

Studies I've seen point to wider and more extreme irregularities in the 2004 Presidential election than have likely occurred before. This concerns me. This should concern anyone, and everyone.

Electronic voting is a good idea - carried out properly. Proprietary software - running under any Microsoft OS (the paragon of security </sarcasm>) at that - reviewed or not, is contrary to the very idea of transparent elections. The US, the EU, the UN, the OECD - any state or organization with any interest in furthering democratic institutions - all criticize elections in which the procedures are not transparent. Fraud can, and does, happen - it's just much harder to pull off fraud when everyone can see everything save for people's individual votes.

That errors and glitches occurred throughout the US is unacceptable and unforgivable - any hardware or software entrusted with recording the future of a nation should be no less error proof than the vehicles that carried astronauts to the moon (errors will happen - Apollo 13, among others - but what happened in November 2004, repeatedly, is outrageous).

Until such a time as the US Congress gets its act together and puts together a clear and strong set of legislation governing elections, specifically of any electronic nature (in other words, unlikely in the next millennium), paper ballots should be used - plain and simply. The simpler, the better - mechanical systems, such as the lever based polling booths in NY (which record their vote on a paper ballot), work just fine, mostly, provided they introduce no more variance than human hand counting.

Also, the penalty for election fraud should be life in prison.

I think, theoretically, election fraud could be seen as treason, hence punishable by death. ;)

Life imprisonment would be perfect.

Every vote should be counted. Every vote should have a paper trail. No one should be elected by error. Republican, Democrat, Satanist, I don't care who or what he/she/it is affiliated with... Our system is failing us. It needs to be put into legislation that every vote is secure and accounted for. As of now it is not.

I mean, is it really to much to ask our government for a receipt? You get a receipt anytime you make an electronic transaction right? At the bank, the gas pump, the market, McDonalds, and EVERYWHERE! Why? Because if you don't have a receipt, you have no proof of purchase. You could be charged too much or billed twice or charged for something you never purchased in the first place. Get it? It's tangible proof of what you wanted.

Now you can dismiss this issue as sour grapes for the dems or you can take a step back and actually see that this leaves room for political corruption, and that is death to a democracy. Do you want the government to control you? Or do you want to control the government? They work for us remember?
The idea of a paper record isn't so bad, but I'm not sure it would make the recounts any easier. Just imagine the sight of every voter that cared to be included in the recount standing in line waiting to have his receipt examined by some committee who will decide in which column to tally his vote. If that's why we want receipts, it's unworkable.

On the other hand, if we want to examine them after we vote there are other problems. I could easily program a machine to tally one set of numbers for storage and another for display. Even if there were not some vast Right-Wing conspiracy controlling the electronic technology, there are still folks in South Florida that can't figure out who to vote for, let alone remember who it was they did vote for. There will be a line of unhappy voters trying to change their votes at every precinct. Maybe that's a little more workable, but it will still require more precinct workers at a time when it's hard to recruit them.

Nah, we're just going to have to realize that counting 50+ million votes are going to have some problems. By the way, we don't count all the votes, anyway. Absentee ballots rarely get counted, unless the election day results are close enough for them to matter.

At least it's cared about, unlike the time when Dailey, the former mayor of Chicago(not the one in power right now) "found" votes that gave JFK the victory.

At least it's cared about, unlike the time when Dailey, the former mayor of Chicago(not the one in power right now) "found" votes that gave JFK the victory.
Consider who the alternative was.

This new "caring" still mostly looks and smells like sour grapes from a hysterical group of losers.

No, not every vote should be counted. Anyone too stupid to fill a ballot paper in should have their ballot thrown out.

Also, we need to address voter apathy in the US. The fastest way I can see to do this is term limits.I can see a faster way. Make voting compulsory. If Americans don't vote, they have to pay a fine of $50 or provide a reasonable excuse why they didn't.

It happens in Australia, and look, they produced people like Max Barry!

I can see a faster way. Make voting compulsory. If Americans don't vote, they have to pay a fine of $50 or provide a reasonable excuse why they didn't.

It happens in Australia, and look, they produced people like Max Barry!Wow, are you serious? I've never heard this before. How is it inforced?

I can see a faster way. Make voting compulsory. If Americans don't vote, they have to pay a fine of $50 or provide a reasonable excuse why they didn't.

It happens in Australia, and look, they produced people like Max Barry!
We need fewer people voting in the United States. There are way too many stupid and unproductive people that vote. We should certainly consider allowing only property owners, or only net tax-payers, or only civics test passers, or something, to vote.

Wow, are you serious? I've never heard this before. How is it inforced?National census, I think, or the tax returns...or something. Or it's psychologically enforced: people know that if they don't vote, they'll have to pay a fine, so they vote. Of course, if they don't vote, there's no real way to enforce the law, but are people really going to be rational?

We need fewer people voting in the United States. There are way too many stupid and unproductive people that vote. We should certainly consider allowing only property owners, or only net tax-payers, or only civics test passers, or something, to vote.No, that's discrimination and it violates the 14th amendment. OK, it's discrimination against idiots, but they're protected by the Constitution too.

No, that's discrimination and it violates the 14th amendment. OK, it's discrimination against idiots, but they're protected by the Constitution too.
Maybe it's time to repeal the 14th. There is at least one more on my list I'd like to see erase. The 19th has outlived it's welcome, too.

Wow, are you serious? I've never heard this before. How is it inforced?

There are countries (at least I'm led to believe) that do make voting mandatory. As far as I know, they tend to be European. I'll have to verify that.

No, that's discrimination and it violates the 14th amendment. OK, it's discrimination against idiots, but they're protected by the Constitution too.

Actually, there's no "right to vote" in the Constitution. The various amendments we have forbid denying the civil right to vote based on skin color, sex, age, ability to pay a tax, test results, that sort of thing, but it's perfectly legal (if sometimes dubious) to forbid felons that civil right.

In theory, it would be Constitutional to deny voting to every last American, or to Americans who showed treasonous tendencies, or the like - denial just couldn't be upon Constitutionally forbidden grounds.

In practice, it won't happen. The most fundamental civil right is the right to vote - that and it's too ingrained in people's minds (including mine!) to possibly restrict or abolish it.

Is this:

http://www.goenglish.com/GoEnglish_com_BeatADeadHorse.gif


This has been discussed ad nauseum...

I think, theoretically, election fraud could be seen as treason, hence punishable by death. ;)

Life imprisonment would be perfect.
No it isn't. The courts have been very clear what defines treason, and that isn't it.

Actually, there's no "right to vote" in the Constitution. The various amendments we have forbid denying the civil right to vote based on skin color, sex, age, ability to pay a tax, test results, that sort of thing, but it's perfectly legal (if sometimes dubious) to forbid felons that civil right.

In theory, it would be Constitutional to deny voting to every last American, or to Americans who showed treasonous tendencies, or the like - denial just couldn't be upon Constitutionally forbidden grounds.

In practice, it won't happen. The most fundamental civil right is the right to vote - that and it's too ingrained in people's minds (including mine!) to possibly restrict or abolish it.
9th Amendment.

Back to the faulty electronic voting machines... I had an idea, what if your vote was verifiable on the internet? You take your voting stub and type in the number and see what you voted for. The more data bases there are, the more difficult it would be to hack results.

Back to the faulty electronic voting machines... I had an idea, what if your vote was verifiable on the internet? You take your voting stub and type in the number and see what you voted for. The more data bases there are, the more difficult it would be to hack results.


What if someone hacks the internet database?

Actually, there's no "right to vote" in the Constitution. The various amendments we have forbid denying the civil right to vote based on skin color, sex, age, ability to pay a tax, test results, that sort of thing, but it's perfectly legal (if sometimes dubious) to forbid felons that civil right.

In theory, it would be Constitutional to deny voting to every last American, or to Americans who showed treasonous tendencies, or the like - denial just couldn't be upon Constitutionally forbidden grounds.

In practice, it won't happen. The most fundamental civil right is the right to vote - that and it's too ingrained in people's minds (including mine!) to possibly restrict or abolish it.Crap! You're right, I just checked, there's nowhere in the constitution that it says all citizens have the right to vote. I should have thought that was obvious...obviously not to James Madison.

What if someone hacks the internet database?You mean the internet database of the internet databases of what people voted?

You don't need to hack it. It can be modified by the people who own it.

I don't know about the Diebold voting backwards thing, never heard of it, and I live in Ohio, my parents house is just a few minutes from Diebold corporate headquarters.

But on the Gahanna incident, the reason for the problem is that the file got corrupted when it was copied to the intermediate transfer device, and as a result calculated a few hundred extra votes. They corrected the error by using a new intermediary device, and copied the files right over, as the numbers remained on the voting machines.

I don't know anything about the Florida instances, I'd like more info on those, why were the ballots thrown out, and what type of ballot were they?

Just a few gripes about the original post.

Crap again! It was plainly obvious from the first. Glenham, why don't you look at your own signature?

Diebold voting systems record your vote and select the opposite.

uh huh

and i'm sure that only happened to the detriment of Kerry's vote totals...

Prerequisites for voting:

1. Literacy -- a voter must be able to read (although maybe there are people around to help in case you can't.)
2. Dexterity/Coordination -- a voter must be able to hold a pen and write on a card or punch a hole (lol) in a card... or, using preferably the index finger, touch the correct spot on a screen.
3. Memory -- While this does not prevent a person from voting, per se, lack of memory might prevent him from choosing the "right" person.
4. Stamp or Means of Transportation -- A person must either be energetic enough to get to a polling place to vote, or buy a stamp/envelope so that he/she may mail his/her ballot.
5. Ability to Differentiate -- A person must know that "Bush" and "Kerry" are two different people, and that arbitrarily picking one will not necessarily reflect his/her views.

lol

You mean the internet database of the internet databases of what people voted?

You don't need to hack it. It can be modified by the people who own it.Just like the companies that make the electronic voting machines.

No it isn't. The courts have been very clear what defines treason, and that isn't it.

Humor.

I'd also enjoy seeing some independent verification of some of these claims. Possibly CNN or BBC or something. Something along those lines, in fact, if you could find something pertaining to these from various elections offices, officials and committees, I'd be very appreciative.

9th Amendment.

In which case there was no need for an Amendment forbidding denial of the right to vote for African Americans, women, etc.

In which case it's unconstitutional for felons to be stripped of the right.

Voting is a civil right - not a natural right. The Bill Of Rights enumerates both natural and civil rights, using contemporary experience and historical rights as examples.

The Ninth Amendment provides for that rights not expressly enumerated are recognized as being retained by the people. Such rights can only be natural in, uh, nature, because individual people do not possess civil rights apart from society (they do, however, possess natural rights, regardless, save for restraints accepted as belonging to a civil society). Because the people can not inherently possess a civil right, as all civil rights only have meaning in the context of civil society, and the Ninth speaks only to rights already held by the people (apart from civil society), there exists no Ninth Amendment right to vote.

Privacy, yes - that's as natural a right as there can be, and is the fundamental basis for almost every other natural right.

That's a strict reading of it - I can't say that the Supreme Court would not find civil rights protected under the Ninth, but I'm not aware of it having done so.

The right to vote was never considered as expansive as any other, and there's no provision made for it in the Constitution prior to non BOR Amendments - if it was considered a right at all, coming from the British tradition in which only privileged, landed, white, Anglican, males could vote at all.

That's not to say that it shouldn't be considered expansively and fundamentally - it is the most fundamental of all civil rights, without which all other civil rights mean nothing.

On Edit: I should clarify. There is no federal right to vote - only federal restrictions on what states can forbid. There does exist, however, constitutional guarantees of the right to vote on a state to state basis - suffrage is the topic of the Second Article of the New York State Constitution, for example.

Crap again! It was plainly obvious from the first. Glenham, why don't you look at your own signature?

Because my signature is located at the crux of the issue. ;)

Read my immediately preceding post (the Ninth Amendment only addresses natural rights - not civil rights).

On Edit (As Above): I should clarify. There is no Ninth Amendment "right" to vote, only federal restrictions on the infringement of state defined voting rights. As also clarified above, New York State guarantees suffrage in its Constitution's Second Article, in which case in NY there is a firm NYS Constitutional right to vote.

Oh come on! How can a topic like this come up without mentioning Mark Twain!?! Somethings never change you know!

The only man I ever knew who could counteract this passion on the part of Democrats for voting, was Robert Roach, carpenter of the steamer Aleck Scott, "plying to and from St. Louis to New Orleans and back," as her advertisement sometimes read. The Democrats generally came up as deck passengers from New Or leans, and the yellow fever used to snatch them right and left - eight or nine a day for the first six or eight hundred miles; consequently Roach would have a lot on hand to "plant" every time the boat landed to wood - "plant" was Roach's word. One day as Roach was superintending a burial the Captain came up and said:

"God bless my soul, Roach, what do you mean by shoving a corpse into a hole in the hill-side in this barbarous way, face down and its feet sticking out?"

"I always plant them foreign Democrats in that manner, sir, because, damn their souls, if you plant 'em any other way they'll dig out and vote the first time there's an election - but look at that fellow, now - you put 'em in head first and face down and the more they dig the deeper they'll go into the hill."

In my opinion, if we do not get Roach to superintend our cemeteries, enough Democrats will dig out at the next election to carry their entire ticket. It begins to look that way.

:D

Haha. I don't know what to say. Very insightful? lol

As requested, here are CNN links:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/28/ramasastry.votingmachines/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/10/voting/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/12/10/hln.wired.voting.machines/index.html

Re: Compulsory Voting - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting

Re: Right To Vote - http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/right_to_vote.html (some partisan bias is apparent, but it addresses the issue head on)

It's very hard to get to the bottom of the voting problem. Since there are only two sides (the others are pretty much forbidden from taking place in the electoral game, squashed out by Republicans and Democrats), only one at a time brings up voting fraud: the loser. The winner is opportunistic, not altruistic, not much of the time.

Both parties do it, though: look at Washington. Thousands of votes are uncertain (no one knows how those people voted, for in many states it's a felony to disclose private votes) and the Republicans, having lost a gubernatorial recount by about 100 votes (similar to Gore in Florida in 2000, only less important) protested, suing to get the courts to redistrbute those votes based on proportionality of other precincts, a measure that would assure Republicans the win.

You also can't limit voting as simply as many propose. Stopping felons can be understood, but consider the following:

Stopping blacks and women from voting was simple in a time of simple minds; they were viewed as obviously inferior to white males.

My 8th grade art teacher had carpal tunnel and barely had use of her hands for a while. If that happened around an election, would her "dexterity" have ruled her out?

The illiterate have opinions, too. In order to relieve themselves and their progeny of that condition, they could vote for candidates that support better public education. You can't deny them the vote.

Voter education can be pivotal, but how do you measure it with all the lies flying around? Swift boats and National Guard records aside, what constitutes "voter education"? My grandparents once met someone who, after all the hullaballoo over the last election, didn't know who the Democratic presidential candidate was. Is that voter "educated"?

The greatest danger is voter apathy. Some don't care to be informed, going along with whatever their party throws at them or which candidate is better-looking.

The issue is difficult; the times are difficult; tellingthe truth is difficult, especially when you're in a race. We need more of altruism and less self-righteousness in the government and the world.

It's very hard to get to the bottom of the voting problem. Since there are only two sides (the others are pretty much forbidden from taking place in the electoral game, squashed out by Republicans and Democrats), only one at a time brings up voting fraud: the loser. The winner is opportunistic, not altruistic, not much of the time.

Both parties do it, though: look at Washington. Thousands of votes are uncertain (no one knows how those people voted, for in many states it's a felony to disclose private votes) and the Republicans, having lost a gubernatorial recount by about 100 votes (similar to Gore in Florida in 2000, only less important) protested, suing to get the courts to redistrbute those votes based on proportionality of other precincts, a measure that would assure Republicans the win.

You also can't limit voting as simply as many propose. Stopping felons can be understood, but consider the following:

Stopping blacks and women from voting was simple in a time of simple minds; they were viewed as obviously inferior to white males.

My 8th grade art teacher had carpal tunnel and barely had use of her hands for a while. If that happened around an election, would her "dexterity" have ruled her out?

The illiterate have opinions, too. In order to relieve themselves and their progeny of that condition, they could vote for candidates that support better public education. You can't deny them the vote.

Voter education can be pivotal, but how do you measure it with all the lies flying around? Swift boats and National Guard records aside, what constitutes "voter education"? My grandparents once met someone who, after all the hullaballoo over the last election, didn't know who the Democratic presidential candidate was. Is that voter "educated"?

The greatest danger is voter apathy. Some don't care to be informed, going along with whatever their party throws at them or which candidate is better-looking.

The issue is difficult; the times are difficult; tellingthe truth is difficult, especially when you're in a race. We need more of altruism and less self-righteousness in the government and the world.You've forgotten the third parties: the Independent, Green, Socialist Workers', Constitution, Prohibition... not that they get any votes, but still.

I did mention them. Check out the first paragraph.

Oh come on! How can a topic like this come up without mentioning Mark Twain!?! Somethings never change you know!

Originally Posted by The Works of Mark Twain; Early Tales & Sketches

The only man I ever knew who could counteract this passion on the part of Democrats for voting, was Robert Roach, carpenter of the steamer Aleck Scott, "plying to and from St. Louis to New Orleans and back," as her advertisement sometimes read. The Democrats generally came up as deck passengers from New Or leans, and the yellow fever used to snatch them right and left - eight or nine a day for the first six or eight hundred miles; consequently Roach would have a lot on hand to "plant" every time the boat landed to wood - "plant" was Roach's word. One day as Roach was superintending a burial the Captain came up and said:

"God bless my soul, Roach, what do you mean by shoving a corpse into a hole in the hill-side in this barbarous way, face down and its feet sticking out?"

"I always plant them foreign Democrats in that manner, sir, because, damn their souls, if you plant 'em any other way they'll dig out and vote the first time there's an election - but look at that fellow, now - you put 'em in head first and face down and the more they dig the deeper they'll go into the hill."

In my opinion, if we do not get Roach to superintend our cemeteries, enough Democrats will dig out at the next election to carry their entire ticket. It begins to look that way.

:DThe reports of my demise are greatly exaggerated. ;)

I actually think it's quite an injustice that's being done to American "third" parties; basically, the dominance of the two major parties hinders voter education. I think the third parties would get more votes in elections if they were allowed to participate in televised debates instead of getting arrested for protesting that they weren't (David Cobb and Michael Badnarik in 2004). Look at Ross Perot in 1992.

how many of those mistakes were made by people that dont know how to vote properly? Do you take that into account? If you cant learn how to vote then you get what you pay for so to speak.

Ya, someone in Ohio just accidentally voted 10,000 times. Probably an OCD case.

I actually think it's quite an injustice that's being done to American "third" parties; basically, the dominance of the two major parties hinders voter education. I think the third parties would get more votes in elections if they were allowed to participate in televised debates instead of getting arrested for protesting that they weren't (David Cobb and Michael Badnarik in 2004). Look at Ross Perot in 1992.

We should probably switch to the Australian style where you get to pick first second and third choices. That way if you voted for the Green party then it's pretty much a given that you liked Kerry more than Bush, so you shouldn't treat them as if you support them equally. That would also encourage a lot more "third" parties. Which is exactly why we don't have it.

It doesn't matter all that much anyway, it's the Electoral College that gets to pick who runs the country, and they pick the guy that the corporation who offered them the most cash picked. :rolleyes:

It doesn't matter all that much anyway, it's the Electoral College that gets to pick who runs the country, and they pick the guy that the corporation who offered them the most cash picked. :rolleyes:
I wouldn't mind a parliamentary system like they have in the UK.

I wouldn't mind a parliamentary system like they have in the UK.

I wouldn't!!!

It would circumvent one of our major checks and balances.

Think about it, if the legistlative body in power also got to choose the chief executive, where would the inherent baance of power be between the two groups?

For the most part, The Us has done the best when the chief executive has been from one party and the legistlature has been from the other(Reagan, Clinton). There are transition periods of course(as we are going through now) where 1 party is dominant(but then they quickly run to excess).

Our foundingfather fathers were brilliant in their distrust of even the most noble intentions. Give them their due.

I wouldn't!!!

It would circumvent one of our major checks and balances.

Think about it, if the legistlative body in power also got to choose the chief executive, where would the inherent baance of power be between the two groups?

For the most part, The Us has done the best when the chief executive has been from one party and the legistlature has been from the other(Reagan, Clinton). There are transition periods of course(as we are going through now) where 1 party is dominant(but then they quickly run to excess).

Our foundingfather fathers were brilliant in their distrust of even the most noble intentions. Give them their due.
Perhaps, I was emotivist there. (Oh dear God no!!!)

No one ever said you had to be nice to be honest. Ignoring people just because you don't like how they say something is willingly ignoring their argument. In other words just because some one calls me stupid doesn't mean I know what I'm talking about and he doesn't.

Ad Hominem Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives. Dictionary.com

but questioning motives helps put the argument into perspective... why should we care what these minor problems are with electronic voting machines when we have similar if not more problems in conventional voting techniques.