Too Little to Late

This election is over!

Concentrating on the past serves no real purpose other than to promote devisiveness.

The real issue here seems to be how do we get an even and standardized voting system across all states for national elections without resorting to electronic voting that could be manipulated. (by either party)

Simplification may be atained by seperating the local and state ballots from the federal presidential ballot. No more democratic butterflys open to interpretation.(Florida 2000)

States rights can be preserved by having internal elections based on whatever form is desired by a paticular state legislature while at the same time having the presidential vote on a more simplified form that requires an "X" on the spot for a vote to be tallied. (No more interpretations nor mistakes, either its marked or its not)

Recounts would be far more efficient and reliable for the presidential election due to the seperation of these ballots from state methodolgy and affiliation.

The "X" on the spot requirement should be in very bold print on the ballot so there is no mistaking the voters understanding of the process.

I am disgusted with the process as it stands now sheerly because of the ambiguities available.

[edit on 5-12-2004 by Phoenix]

Despite all this "mounting" evidences for vote 'manipulations' equating to possible vote fraud, etc., etc., the greatest mystery to this whole puzzle is; why isn't Mr. Kerry, his campaign, and the entire Democratic party not questioning the validity of the election? Mr. Kerry has some 50 million dollars at his disposal....

There are a multitude of assumptions that can be made, namely:
* Republican's must have been extremely smart to pull this off.
* Democrats must have been extremely stupid and failed to thwart the Republican 'game plan.'
* Sequoia, Diebold, and ES&S, the three main evoting companies must have sunk mega-millions into covering their tracks and ensuring that the Republican's would win....this is not even taking into account the amount of mega-millions needed to make sure that the 'trail' didn't lead back to them. Just how long would these three evoting company's be in business if they were found tampering with the election process...I mean gee, they are business oriented company's right, trying to make a profit, etc.?
* etc., etc.

Has Bev Harris proved that the evoting machines have made factual errors? Not mistakes, but actual falsely recorded votes (excluding the varied confirmed local 'glitches')?

IMHO, even if the election process got rid of the machine votes and went strictly to an "X" marks the spot vote, there will be those who will still cry the election process is invalid, because the "X" was not complete. Evoting gets rid of the objectiveness in the process, evoting critics want the objectiveness put back in the process. Maybe the critics want to keep punch cards in the process also? Wanting more of those "hangin' chads" fiasco's....




seekerof

[edit on 5-12-2004 by Seekerof]

The Fraud that took place in Ohio took a number of forms, not just wholesale transfer of votes from one candidate to another through voting machine tabulation "error".

It included irregularities such as shutting observers out of the counting in one county office over a fake terrorist threat, providing insufficient machines in urban areas to create queues of many hours in length (in predominantly black communities, of course), and several other systematic undemocratic prrocesses. Then, of course, there have been varying levels of co-operation in what ought to be a transparent review process, with the worst stalling from secretary of state Blackwell.

Bev Harris does no have onus of proof on her for anything. The electoral offices have the responsibility to follow through and provide information through FOI processes, and to recount where it is demanded by law. There is quite a large requirement for voluntary labor to see the process through and a willing labor pool.

The reasons why Kerry and his campaign and the DP have determined to distance themselves from the process at this stage are a matter for conjecture and not relevant to the process of audit and determining that that there was no fraud and no culpability (an unlikely conclusion except via stonewalling, which would mean no conclusion, which would no doubt satisfy Bush administration sycophants) and that there was a legal and accurately scored election.

Originally posted by Phoenix
Too Little to Late

This election is over!

Concentrating on the past serves no real purpose other than to promote devisiveness.

Deny ignorance.

1. The election in Ohio will not be considered "over" until December 13, at the earliest, and it is unlikely to be over then, for obviis reasons if you take a few minutes to understand.

2. The only focus here on the past is how election fraud and the archaic and corruptible voting system are allowed to shape the present and the future. If you remain blissfully unaware of the status of the FOI requests, then you are not living in the moment or the present.

2. Try "divisiveness", from the verb to divide.

Democracy is over by your standards of judgment, even though the election process isn't.



*I think I will leave in my little miscount.*

[edit on 5-12-2004 by MaskedAvatar]

MA god bless ya, where were you and your rightious indignation when the poll hours were manipulated in 2000 in Western Florida and St Louis?

Or the dead voted in Chicago?

So on and so forth.

I think all voter fraud should be brought to light and prosecuted to the fullest extent do you?

Absolutely.

Why isn't it?

But to do that, don't we have to look at the immediate past, and look at the specifics of what happened in order to determine the wrongdoing and to prosecute that?

The sad thing is that under this electoral system, stonewalling will allow fraudulent results to pass through unchecked. Just delay long enough, deadlines pass, Supreme Court intervenes, presidents get appointed without being elected.

The recent Ukraine election is no different a model to the US election, except people there care more for their democratic rights.

as posted by MaskedAvatar
The reasons why Kerry and his campaign and the DP have determined to distance themselves from the process at this stage are a matter for conjecture and not relevant to the process of audit and determining that that there was no fraud and no culpability (an unlikely conclusion except via stonewalling, which would mean no conclusion, which would no doubt satisfy Bush administration sycophants) and that there was a legal and accurately scored election.

That's all peachy keen there, MA. I found what you said to be quite astounding, if not outright ironic. You suggest that Mr. Kerry and his campaigns non-involvement with the process of "audit" in Ohio, or elsewhere that may be of possible dispute, is of no relevance? Its not?

Excuse me, "conjecture" aside, we are talking the Presidency here. If this election was "stolen" as you and others so claim, your response to why He , his campaign, and the entire Democratic Party has NOT and is NOT openly disputing this is per chance, highly questionable? See, you and others paint this picture that:

1) The 2000 Election was "stolen."
2) The 2004 Election was "stolen."
3) Bev Harris and blackboxvoting equate to proof that Bush "stole" the election(s).

Seems to me, that if the situation was in reverse and say Mr. Kerry had won, then the voting process, voter fraud, voter intimidation, etc., etc., etc., wouldn't be a matter of "conjecture and not relevant to the process of audit and determining that that there was no fraud and no culpability," now would it, MA? In fact, you'd be contesting and presenting to the otherwise. Please, correct me if I am wrong, or wait...maybe thats a matter of "conjecture" and "not relevant," also?



seekerof

[edit on 6-12-2004 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Excuse me, "conjecture" aside, we are talking the Presidency here. If this election was "stolen" as you and others so claim, your response to why He , his campaign, and the entire Democratic Party has NOT and is NOT openly disputing this is per chance, highly questionable?

It's not that questionable if you realize that, if Kerry continued to dispute the campaign, any alternative political career he may have would most likely be over.

Wait, he admits defeat in this election, despite the buzzword being "stolen," "voter fraud," etc., just so his chance in 2008 are not dismissed?

Is Mr. Kerry living for today or is he living for tomorrow?



seekerof

[edit on 6-12-2004 by Seekerof]

Kerry's interest or lack of has no bearing on investigating voting fraud.

If a crime was committed anywhere in this nation during the last election, I hope that it will be investigated properly.

It's not about sore losers or smug winners, it's about getting it right.

BTW, I didn't vote for either Bush or Kerry.

Which all goes to show how corruptible and undemocratic the US electoral system is, with the need for reform.

Laws enacted just in time to enable stonewalling and obfuscation, sometimes in the name of 'national security'. Wholesale prevention of any checks on paperless machine ballots. Total disenfranchisement of large sections of the voting community through deliberate under-resourcing in 'troublesome' areas.

Viewing an artificial deadline as the most important landmark rather than auditing to determine the extend of the fraud is having your priorities twisted badly.

Anyone who rates an artificially constructed and irrelevant deadline over verification of the truth is no friend of the USA, only a friend to cover-ups and corrupt lawyers.

[edit on 7-12-2004 by MaskedAvatar]

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Viewing an artificial deadline as the most important landmark rather than auditing to determine the extend of the fraud is having your priorities twisted badly.

Anyone who rates an artificially constructed and irrelevant deadline over verification of the truth is no friend of the USA, only a friend to cover-ups and corrupt lawyers.

Exactly! This is indeed sad. It just shows what they'll do to keep people from learning the truth.

Originally posted by B. Goode
Kerry's interest or lack of has no bearing on investigating voting fraud.

If a crime was committed anywhere in this nation during the last election, I hope that it will be investigated properly.

It's not about sore losers or smug winners, it's about getting it right.

This is also a very good point. Those who choose not to believe that there's a possibility that they've been duped, always try to pull the old switcheroo, and distract us from the real issue. They're more comfortable pointing fingers at opposing political parties, than facing the facts and more significant evidence.

The real issue is not who won, nor even how they won. The real issue is; if the election is indeed faulty, or delivering false results, it needs to be examined very closely. Investigation of this possibility is an absolute must! This is the very basis of democracy. Without it, we might as well say goodbye to America as we know it. This should not be taken lightly, by any means!

[edit on 8-12-2004 by Damned]