an Ohio recount??!!??!!

[Kaylee]

Dammit folks, we had ELECTION VIOLENCE this year. We can campaign headquarters buildings on each side raided, vandalized, computers stolen. That didn't used to happen!

Election violence is nothing new, particularly when hot button issues are up. Remember Bleeding Kansas?

Now I'll admit the system needs fixing.. but another dog-and-pony show like 2000 will make a descent into widespread violence MORE likely in the future, not less.

 

[roscoe]

Any recount and investigation into voter fraud will expose the Democrat's crooked tactics and severly weaken and embarass the party

Or, alternately, not.

 

[Dave R]

Lemme put on my "media bias" hat and make a prediction, here.

If the recounts uncover fraud by Democrats--i.e. illegal votes for Kerry--the major media is not going to cover it, or will bury it deep.

If the recounts uncover fraud by the Republicans--i.e. illegal votes for Bush--its gonna be front-page news.

 

[flatrock]

"Folks, this recount is necessary.

Here's why:

We won't survive as a nation if each side that loses presumes that they lost via cheating."

[rant]In 2000 there was a recount in Florida. The losers didn't like that recount, and wanted to keep recounting until they won. It took the US Supreme Court to step in and require that Florida State Law was followed to end the recounting (the Florida Supreme Court blatantly ignored Florida law in their decision).

Even after the recount, and the unsuccessful lawsuit by Gore to recount again, and a later recount done by a liberal newspaper which also showed Bush winning, the Dems still claim BUsh was selected rather than elected.

The real problem with the 2000 election wasn't the integrity of the system, it was the integrity of the Gore campaign, and the main stream media.[/rant]

However, I still don't have a problem with a recount in Ohio and Florida, as long as it's not paid for with taxpayer money. The election ballots or data should be public as long as the public cannot tell for whom individuals voted.

If the libertarian party wants a recount, and can come up with the money to pay for it so that it costs Ohio taxpayers nothing, I think they should be allowed to have a recount. Unless the vote is within the range wher the law specifies an automatic recount, or there is sufficient evidence that the count is incorrect by a wide enough margin to effect the outcome, I don't think the taxpayers should pay for the recount.

However, it's a little early to start a recount when Ohio isn't done with the first count yet.

According to the state elections calendar the official canvas of ballots isn't required to start until tomorrow.

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/pubaffairs/elections/elecalen.pdf

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

This is not the same as 2000. In 2000 it is clear to anyone willing to look at the facts that the Florida outcome was rigged by the Repugs. there is so much evidence of black voter disenfranchisement, etc, that it isn't even in question.

However, I think it is highly unlikely that a recount would be able to show a Kerry victory in this election, given the margins in most of the states. It might show, however, that the election was tainted by actions of people acting for the winner. Not necessarily with his knowledge, but for him just the same. That would cast some doubt on the legitimacy of the victory. There's even a chance that high level admin figures were involved, in which case it would be the greatest scandal since Watergate, and might get the prez thrown out of office. However, there is no way anyone could make the case that Kerry should take office. That would put us in an unprecedented constitutional crisis.

Interesting times, indeed. Who's speaker pro tempore of the Senate?

 

[0007]

Nothin' quite so funny as a lib still hanging onto the "repubugs di-enfranchising blacks, etc in Fl" LIE. You are correct, it is not even in question. BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE AS COMPLETE AND TOTAL LIE. You need to get the new dnc talking points bulletin. As I recall, the only people being ACTIVELY dis-enfranchised in FL were the members of the military who were voting on absentee ballots. And IIRC correctly that was being done by the demo lawyers. Of course for demos, an old lie is as good as a new one.

 

[EvilOmega]

I don't think this has anything to do with who won, more likaly that it's about geting more party names on the ballot or just small partys flexing political mussel.

 

[Langenator]

OK, maybe I'm the only one who's thinking this...since everyone seems caught up in the Dem vs GOP, vote fraud, extra ballots, faulty machines, etc.

Anyone stop to think it might be about automatic ballot slots for parties? I'm not sure how ballot access law works in Ohio, but in most states, a party has to receive either a certain minimum total number of votes, or a minimum percentage of the total for that party to automatically get a spot on the ballot next time around, without having to go through the business of collecting signatures.

The Ohio SecState election results page for 2004 lists 10 candidates for President. Of those 10, 6 are write-ins, including Cobb of the Greens. The non-write-ins are Bush (GOP), Kerry (Dem), Badnarik (Lib), and Peroutka (Con).

Vote tallies (I'm leaving out Bush and Kerry)

Badnarik: 14,331 (0.26%)
Cobb: 24 (does not register at 2 significant digits)
Peroutka: 11,614 (0.21%)

My guess is that Ohio has aminimum threshold ballot access law, and Badnarik, at least, is trying to get a few more votes to keep the Libertarians above it.

Cobb is probably just being a sore loser Leftist.

But that's just my 2 cents.

 

[flatrock]

This is not the same as 2000. In 2000 it is clear to anyone willing to look at the facts that the Florida outcome was rigged by the Repugs. there is so much evidence of black voter disenfranchisement, etc, that it isn't even in question.

Huh? There was a long series of investigations into black voter intimidation and disenfranchisement. They found no evidence of intentional disenfranchisement.

The only thing they found was that the elections officials in some predominantly black areas didn't upgrade their equipment to the latest equipment available. However, punch cards are still used all across the country and their use is not considered disenfranchisement. Those elections officials were elected by the people in those areas, not some republicans form other areas that were trying to suppress the black vote.

I've voted using punch cards for many years. Is my vote being suppressed?

The only person who tried to steal the election in 2000 was Gore. The election in Florida was held according to the laws of Florida. When he didn't like the results, he sued for a recount. That recount was showing Bush winning, so he sued to change how the votes were being counted.

After the election a newspaper did their own recount using the ballots and Gores method of counting. Gore STILL lost. Yet there are people like you that claim that Bush stole the election even though all the evidence shows this to be untrue.

It was a VERY close election, but Bush won it.

 

[shermacman]

As we look ahead to Bush's re-election in 2008, we will watch a more accurate voting system emerge. As that system weeds out ballot box fraud and illegal voting, the margins will shift even more strongly to the Republicans. The Democrats can only lie, cheat and whimper. There was no Black voter disenfranchisement in 2000.

What do I mean by Bush's re-election in 2008? Well, lets give the lunatic left the lollypop and agree that W. was 'selected' in 2000. That means the 2004 election was his first. So in 2008 he will be eligible for his second election.

Which is how it should be.

 

[hubel458]

Sherm- I was thinking same thing, seeing as how dems consider
him just a interim prez for last 4 years, by their reasoning, he could
do it in 08.And do it easy as the dem fraud gets weeded out in
the recount process and election equipment upgrades. AND the
GOP puts a watch on the process like they did this year a little
better. That made difference in SD, as 5000 dead Indians couldn't
get their ghost steeds past poll watchers to vote for D???????.Ed.

 

[one45auto]

"Repugs"? Hmmm....

Sounds as though someone left the door open and a democratic undergrounder snuck in. Time to call Terminix.

 

[jsalcedo]

"Repugs"? Hmmm....

Sounds as though someone left the door open and a democratic undergrounder snuck in. Time to call Terminix.

P.E.S.T

"Distraught Kerry supporters in South Florida contacted the non-profit AHA following their candidate’s Nov. 3 concession to President Bush. AHA officials have diagnosed the disorder as Post Election Selection Trauma (PEST)"

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

You people are so brainwashed by the dominant conservative media that you're almost not worth talking to. I don't suppose anyone heard of the 10s of thousands of blacks who were dropped from the voting lists in Fla because they were supposedly ex-felons, only to find out later that the Repug-linked company that did the purging made a "mistake." Of course, you won't hear about that on CNN or Fox or the rest of the corporate media. That would have given Gore at least enough to win, if they had been allowed to vote.

But the truth isn't worth much around here.

But that's not what I was talking about. That's history, and not likely repeated this time. Or more likely, it doesn't matter that a few thousand votes were stolen, because the margins were mch larger.

I'm wondering what y'all would do if Ohio or Fla did get turned around and Kerry won by the EC while losing in the popular vote. It could easily have happened. I mean statistically, anyway, I know the gangsters in the WH wouldn't have let it happen.

 

[hubel458]

If Kerry won Electoral College he would be prez. That is
the law. As for other deal with votors being dropped, I figure
that the bigger numbers of military guys the dems dis-enfranchised
with their dirty tricks(which they pulled again this year), kinda balances out......Ed.

 

[jefnvk]

My issue here is why is it the Constitution and Libretarian parties doing th recount? I'm going with Lang, there is something in it for them.

And Jim is right. Usually, I am in favor of letting companies keep their software secret if they want. But for something like voting, these things need to be ripped apart and analyzed. They need to be fixed, and locked down. And it needs to be done NOW.

 

[sigmaman]

diebold is unbiased and would never cheat an election

CEO of Diebold in as much Guarantees Bush WIN

mid-August 2003, Walden W. O'Dell, the chief executive of Diebold, wrote a letter inviting 100 wealthy friends to a fund-raiser at his home in a suburb of Columbus, Ohio. He wrote, "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." A longtime Republican, he is a member of President Bush's "Rangers and Pioneers,'' an elite group of loyalists who have raised at least $100,000 each for the 2004 race. Through Diebold Election Systems, Mr. O'Dell's company is among the country's biggest suppliers of paperless, touch-screen voting machines.

If the Ceo of diebold had been A wealthy Democrat and said the same things
what would the republicans think ?

 

[sigmaman]

dont mind me just trying to get to 100 posts

Popular Mechanics - A team of former National Security Agency (NSA) computer experts conducted a weeklong exercise with six Diebold machines and a server. According to team leader Michael Wertheimer, the group uncovered "considerable security risks." They found that the smart cards used to provide supervisors with access to the machines could be easily hacked; the removable media containing voting information was protected by flimsy locks that the team picked in under a minute using bent paper clips. The paper clips weren't even necessary, since all 32,000 keys supplied by Diebold for the machines are identical, allowing any key to open all of the machines. On the software side, the most glaring weakness was in election headquarters servers: Dell PCs ran the Windows 2000 operating system without Microsoft's security upgrade patches, which left servers susceptible to viruses and worms, enabling a remote attacker to tamper with election systems by phone."

 

[one45auto]

Speaking of brainwashing, does the democratic underground print a playbook for thier members to quote verbatim from, or does it take days and weeks of repeated reading before one's logical reasoning eventually breaks down and it becomes ingrained? Inquiring minds want to know....

CNN conservative? A network which slants its coverage of firearms toward the anti-gun position, who fawned over Sarah Brady and Bill Clinton, who cooperated with Saddam in censoring and manipulating thier coverage before, during, and after Desert Storm, whose head - Ted Turner, is an admitted socialist, such a network is considered conservative? You've got to be pretty far to the left to think that they're on the right, and if someone is that far gone I shudder to think what they would consider to be fair and balanced.

 

[shermacman]

We start off with an intelligent discussion of politics, voter registration, voter rights, ballot box integrity and technology. Then we get some Left-wing Liberal who feels he has the right to insult a group people by accusing us of being "brainwashed" by the "dominant conservative media". Demeans us by stating: "...the truth isn't worth much around here." Degrades the democratically elected president and his cabinet as a "bunch of gangsters." All to advance a ludicrous and disproven theory that Blacks were denied the vote in Florida in 2000. Nothing to do with guns or RKBA, just idiotic spewing of nonsense. We attempt to not fall to his level of behavior. We attempt to speak back with facts instead of paranoia. Ultimately we fail and attack back. But let's not forget who dragged the debate into the mud.

 

[Iain]

Shermac -

I'm not from your country, but I have been following all this with interest.

If you look back through this thread you'll see this thread had gotten silly before Malone posted. Post no.8 refers to 'John F'ing Kerry'. Somebody else refers to the Dems 'crooked tactics'. Malone has his point of view, I hardly think he dragged this debate into the mud. I suspect you are attacking the 'resident liberal'.

I don't think this is necessarily about Dems vs Repubs as Jim has pointed out - trust in the electoral process goes deeper than party politics.

 

[flatrock]

CEO of Diebold in as much Guarantees Bush WIN

mid-August 2003, Walden W. O'Dell, the chief executive of Diebold, wrote a letter inviting 100 wealthy friends to a fund-raiser at his home in a suburb of Columbus, Ohio. He wrote, "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." A longtime Republican, he is a member of President Bush's "Rangers and Pioneers,'' an elite group of loyalists who have raised at least $100,000 each for the 2004 race. Through Diebold Election Systems, Mr. O'Dell's company is among the country's biggest suppliers of paperless, touch-screen voting machines.

If the Ceo of diebold had been A wealthy Democrat and said the same things
what would the republicans think ?

I'd think it was a good thing that the Secretary of State for Ohio refused to let Diebold voting machines be used in Ohio.

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/news/release/07-16-04.htm

Since Diebold voting machines weren't used in Ohio it seems really unlikely that Bush won Ohio's vote by fraud using Diebold's machines.

Edit: Apparently they did use Diebold optical scan machines in the election, just not the touchscreens. I was wrong. Thanks to Jim for pointing that out.

 

[hubel458]

Oh diebold wasn't used!!! Shoots that bit of DU propaganda in
the ass..........

 

[one45auto]

To answer sigmaman, if a Democrat were the CEO of Diebold I would not think any differently and I'll tell you why. It's because no executive, I don't care how partisan they might be, is going to be dumb enough to attempt voter fraud on such a large scale ~ especially not in a presidential election. The chances of getting caught are extremely good and once found out, the wrath of the voting public - to say nothing of the punishment which would inevitably follow - would be severe indeed. To say that an example would be made of them is a gross understatement, the government would come down on them like the proverbial ton of bricks. They'd be in jail, thier stock would plummet, thier reputation would be mud for the remainder of thier existence, the media would crucify them, thier employees would bail (after all, how many people would begin asking them if they were in on it, too?), and in the end the company would be sold - if they could find someone willing to purchase a pariah.


No, I think it's safe to say that your average CEO cares more about his own safety and career than any politician they might care to endorse.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Almost missed this:

There are many others with totals going the opposite direction:

• REGISTERED VOTERS - CLEVELAND HEIGHTS 38840
  BALLOTS CAST CLEVELAND HEIGHTS 29885
  
  REGISTERED VOTERS - WESTLAKE 25627
  BALLOTS CAST WESTLAKE 25173
  
  REGISTERED VOTERS - LAKEWOOD 41983
  BALLOTS CAST LAKEWOOD 28531

Those taken more or less at random.

Well, of course, you would expect fewer votes than registered voters. It's when it's the other way around that you have to wonder.