It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

2008 - the fix is in...

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Did anyone see RFK jr. on Stephen Colbert Monday? Bobby jr. has written a controversial article for Rolling Stone about the 2004 election irregularities. Colbert asked him:

"What's the difference in Bush stealing Ohio in 2004 and your Uncle stealing Illinois in 1960?"

It's a good question that only a "satirist" is allowed to ask. If Russert or Matthews asked it, they'd being tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail. It's funny that the best news nowadays is the comedy news.

Aaaaanyway, RFK jr. gave an excellent response to the question. He emphasized that voting fraud is always bad regardless of who's doing it and if Illinois had been the deciding state (as Ohio turned out to be in 2004) then he would have the same issues with that, but the fact was JFK would've won with or without the Dead Man vote in Illinois in 1960.




posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Good for Colbert!... though frankly RFK's response smacks of sophistry to me...

The thing with the recent crop of fraud is that it's just got so corrupt and industrial... and from one point of view, you could say it doesn't matter because both Dems and Pugs are so corrupt, but I don't think either 9/11 or the subsequent wars would have happened if Gore had got in, let alone the PATRIOT Act and all the other awful stuff.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
In 2000, Jeb Bush and Katharine Harris got a company called ChoicePoint to purge voter rolls in Florida. The company was paid several million dollars and part of the reason they were paid so much money was to ensure that only genuine criminals were purged from the rolls.

However, in a secret memo, the company TOOK OUT the safeguards in a deliberate attempt to make the purge as wide as possible. If you had the same name as, or even a similar name to a convicted criminal, you were unable to vote.



Originally posted by XphilesPhan...Had kerry won there would be no fighting, all opinions about the elections being rigged would be dismissed out of hand etc. If the democratic candidate doesnt win, there is usually fighting for 8 months over retarded things like paper hanging on the ballot

If any votes are thrown out, that probably means they had no right to vote.....remember felons (the majority of which ARE minorities) have no right to vote.



Originally posted by Apoc...The fact is DEMS are the ones that steal and rig elections by cheat voting, fighting against voter ID cards, and discounting military ballots over text technicalities.

www.hooverdigest.org...


Yep, though I'm sure both parties rig all kinds of votes all the time, I gotta go with XphilesPhan and Apoc on this one.

I was living in South Florida during the so-called "stolen election." The Choicepoint info that Rich23 mentions is true... so far as he goes. But there's some semi-important info being left out, I don't know if it's omitted by the reporter (Palast) or by Rich23.

See, Florida has provisional balloting, a thing that everyone here should know, since provisional ballots were talked to death during that stupid recount.

If your name was struck from the roll of legitimate registered voters, and you showed up at the polls, then you would be given a provisional ballot. In the event that the election results fell within a certain, defined percentage (and they did,) these provisional ballots would be verified and counted, if valid, (and they were.)

Does anybody find it odd that this particular aspect of the Florida vote is not being discussed? Seems to me that any honest discussion should have contained that little piece of information, no?

I can't speak for Ohio, but my understanding of what happened there differs from that of Mr. Palast.


Originally posted by rich23You just don't understand the mechanism of this, do you? I'll explain this again, for the last time. Anyone whose name was even a vague match to that of a felon had their name struck from the electoral roll. The company was paid several million dollars (as opposed to about half a million) to produce a computer program that would ensure that date of birth and name were an exact match: yet those safeguards were, quite deliberately, NOT implemented with the result that around 55,000 legitimate voters were struck off the rolls.

I can't make it any simpler than that.

Why, yes you can, rich23, and you know it!

At least Apoc provided a link to his information, and not just some interview with some alarmist trying to sell his book.

Please provide any evidence at all that people who weren't too lazy to fill out provisional ballots in the Florida 2000 election had their votes "thrown out." Also, I'd like to see documentation of how many people were mistakenly purged, and not just an estimate by the Miami Herald. Please include the number that were legitimately purged also, as well as the number of times these felons had fraudulently voted in previous elections before the Republicans took over the state and finally tried to bring it into compliance with it's own legal code.


Originally posted by rich23According to your source a total of 788 ballots were rejected in a legal dispute. Roughly 55,000 people were disenfranchised by DBT's purging of th polls.

It hardly compares.


Also, if you read the info at Apoc's link, then its more than a little disingenuous for you to dismiss it as a mere 788 ballots in that "legal dispute."


Despite his "count every vote" spin, Al Gore had no qualms about seeking to disenfranchise thousands of military and other absentee voters because of minor technical violations in procedure or no violations at all. On November 15, two days before the final batch of overseas ballots were to be counted, Gore campaign attorney Mark Herron circulated a memo instructing Democratic lawyers on the grounds for challenging overseas ballots, which were expected to—and, in the end, did—favor Bush by a two-to-one margin...
...On December 8, in a suit brought by the Bush forces, U.S. District Court judge Lacey A. Collier ruled that Florida had acted illegally in excluding overseas ballots solely because there was no proof that a timely request had been made for a state ballot or solely because the ballot envelope lacked an APO, FPO, or foreign postmark. Since the action by the U.S. Supreme Court terminating the Florida contest came just four days later, there was no time to implement Judge Collier’s order, and Bush was denied several hundred additional votes that would have padded his lead over Gore. Astonishingly, in an article published July 15, 2001, the New York Times claimed that instances where the two categories of overseas votes had been counted were proof that Bush had been aided by "flawed ballots."
My emphasis.

The attempt made by the Gore Camp was to disenfranchise every single overseas military vote. The fact that they failed in this effort is hardly the point, is it? Unless there's a double standard here. This double standard, obvious to most of us, is filtered out by partisan blinders by people on the left. This standard is what was referred to by XphilesPhan when he said "had Kerry won there would be no fighting..."

Lastly, the Dems have caused serious problems with their unsubstantiated charges of voter fraud. Let us hope the Republicans refrain from such stupidity the next time they lose an election. But given the way the Democrats look when they constantly cry "Foul," the Republicans may never get a chance to refrain from crybabying when they lose, since they may never be in that position!!


Harte

[edit on 6/15/2006 by Harte]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 09:09 AM
link   
What I find most interesting and alarming about the discussion of 2000 and 2004 elections is that regardless of who did what or how it was done or even IF it was done, there is inexaustable proof that the voting machines and methods for ensuring the validity of the vote are at least questionable and at most completely unreliable. What struck me about Bobby Jr's article wasn't his questionable methodology, it was that he didn't outline 1 way the Republicans *might* have tampered with results he outlines about 15 different ways.

My first point is, whether you believe it happened or not, the fact remains our elections can easily be undermined in many different ways.

My second point, the alarming one, is whenever someone questions one of our easy to rig elections they are immediately shouted down as "sore losers" and painted as tin-foil hat wearing looneys. We have a system that's so easily undermined, yet if we question that sytem we're crazy extremists. Doesn't that seem dangerously wrong?



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by SKMDC1
What I find most interesting and alarming about the discussion of 2000 and 2004 elections is that regardless of who did what or how it was done or even IF it was done, there is inexaustable proof that the voting machines and methods for ensuring the validity of the vote are at least questionable and at most completely unreliable.

This has been the case since day one. I would agree that it's deplorable, except that I'm not sure that even the possibility exists to improve the situation. And I don't mean politically, I mean actually


Originally posted by SKMDC1What struck me about Bobby Jr's article wasn't his questionable methodology, it was that he didn't outline 1 way the Republicans *might* have tampered with results he outlines about 15 different ways.

My first point is, whether you believe it happened or not, the fact remains our elections can easily be undermined in many different ways.

Please, SKMDC1. Don't you mean to say "Either Party *might* have tampered with results..."? Your bias is showing, or do you think that it's okay to tamper with an election, as long as you go ahead and lose it?

I'd like to point out that the new voting machines, computerized ballots, touch screen, whatever the new ones are, are contracted for and purchased by the local voting districts, and not by the state or feds. In virtually every state, these districts are politically controlled, almost every single district's voting procedures are determined by a board that is either elected or appointed by somebody that was elected. Sure, many of the board members that are elected are required to run as "nonpartisan," but are you fooled by this designation?

In districts where, say, the Democratic Party has control (such as Broward County, Florida - where I was in 2000,) it is the Democrats that get to decide how I would vote and with what kind of equipment. If my district votes Republican, and the Democrats control everything from the voting machines to the counting of the votes in my district, then what does that say about the state of the Democratic Party in my district? You'd think that they could come up with more evidence than a few discrepancies in exit polls if there were any serious voter fraud in the districts they control! As was said, perhaps we should elect our officials through exit polling, if such polls are so much more accurate than actual vote tallying.

The districts that are unsatisfied can go back to punchcards. But let's remember, punchcards were ridiculed as obscenely outdated by both sides in 2000. Funny how nobody mentioned how flawed the computerized systems could turn out to be. IMO, it's all a function of the blame game. Politicians had to hurry up and react to a perceived problem which wasn't really the problem at all - that being voting methods. Fact is (and was,) the country is so evenly split that what used to be an acceptable margin of error in our national election tallies is now greater than the margin of victory. That is the real problem.


Originally posted by SKMDC1My second point, the alarming one, is whenever someone questions one of our easy to rig elections they are immediately shouted down as "sore losers" and painted as tin-foil hat wearing looneys. We have a system that's so easily undermined, yet if we question that sytem we're crazy extremists. Doesn't that seem dangerously wrong?

I'm not shouting anyone down here. I hear what you're saying, but I think that people that behave like you describe are just reacting to the outrageous statements that have been made by the losing side. No, I say complain all you want, just be fair about it. Use real facts. Understand that the opportunity to monkey with vote counts is available to every party, not just the one in power. Be aware that, though Bush won Florida (even the Miami Herald's own recount a year later showed it, and they admitted it,) several hundred people in Miami voted for Gore in an election that occured after these voters had died!

Harte



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by vrmiddle
So, what about the "elected" governor of Washington (state). The election was over and she had lost. Then, mysteriously a couple of thousand votes mysteriously appeared for her. 300 of which all had the address of the county courthouse in Seattle (my numbers may be off, but the jist is true). Then there is the issue of the illegal immigrant voting (with stolen SSNs). Saying Republicans stole any election is indeed the pot calling the kettle black.
Yes! Thank you for bringing this up. I voted for the other guy here in Washington. It was amazing Christine G. lost the election twice but ended up being our govenor anyway. It seems that many of the votes that mysteriously appeared for her were from convicted felons and dead people. Charges of election tampering can reasonably we laid at the door of both parties.



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 05:10 AM
link   
I am certainly not trying to say that Dems never committed election fraud. I'm of the opinion that the US system is so hopelessly corrupt that it very nearly doesn't matter who gets in.

I'm trying to say that the scale of fraud is now becoming industrial.



Please provide any evidence at all that people who weren't too lazy to fill out provisional ballots in the Florida 2000 election had their votes "thrown out." Also, I'd like to see documentation of how many people were mistakenly purged, and not just an estimate by the Miami Herald. Please include the number that were legitimately purged also, as well as the number of times these felons had fraudulently voted in previous elections before the Republicans took over the state and finally tried to bring it into compliance with it's own legal code.


Well, that's a pleasant, impartial look at the situation. "Too lazy". The accounts that have come out, particularly in the documentary "Unprecedented", revealed how difficult (in fact impossible) it was for black voters to get a voice in Florida.

The sheer gall of your other point is quite notewrthy. However, a moment's thought reveals that the "number that were legitimately purged" is impossible to generate, without rewriting the computer program to fulfil its original purpose before it was hijacked by corrupt officials. Nice straw man - not falling for it, sorry.

As for all that wind about disallowing the service vote, it seems that this is pretty one sided, as the current administration is up to the same thing, BUT targeting black servicemen to have their votes disallowed - Palast again has the details.


The Republican National Committee has a special offer for African-American soldiers: Go to Baghdad, lose your vote.

A confidential campaign directed by GOP party chiefs in October 2004 sought to challenge the ballots of tens of thousands of voters in the last presidential election, virtually all of them cast by residents of Black-majority precincts.
Files from the secret vote-blocking campaign were obtained by BBC Television Newsnight, London. They were attached to emails accidentally sent by Republican operatives to a non-party website.

One group of voters wrongly identified by the Republicans as registering to vote from false addresses: servicemen and women sent overseas.


You can find the rest of the story here.



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 07:49 AM
link   
I've noticed today, more than usual, the OP/EDs all over the nation,
are flooded with this ballot issue of electronic voting/vote fraud.

All's Fair In Love And War...as the saying goes.

besides there's all manner of vote/voter manipulation,
Political Action Committees to name one.

just ?where? does "illegality/unethical" start concerning votes or ballots,
the big push right now is electronic vote machines...
well thats only the caboose of the train,

consider the Palestine 'free elections' installed Hamas
and now its coming back to haunt 'em. ~~whatever that means~~
(maybe those free/fair elections were also bulging with padded voter rolls
like the USA has had for decades??)



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
I am certainly not trying to say that Dems never committed election fraud. I'm of the opinion that the US system is so hopelessly corrupt that it very nearly doesn't matter who gets in.

I'm trying to say that the scale of fraud is now becoming industrial.


You are probably correct in that it doesn't matter who gets in. But voter fraud has no bearing on that. That is, it wouldn't matter any more than it does now even if every vote were perfect. One of the candidates is bound to get in, after all.


Originally posted by rich23

Please provide any evidence at all that people who weren't too lazy to fill out provisional ballots in the Florida 2000 election had their votes "thrown out." Also, I'd like to see documentation of how many people were mistakenly purged, and not just an estimate by the Miami Herald. Please include the number that were legitimately purged also, as well as the number of times these felons had fraudulently voted in previous elections before the Republicans took over the state and finally tried to bring it into compliance with it's own legal code.


Well, that's a pleasant, impartial look at the situation. "Too lazy". The accounts that have come out, particularly in the documentary "Unprecedented", revealed how difficult (in fact impossible) it was for black voters to get a voice in Florida.

Whatever biased source you wish to consult, you are welcome to. I was employed in a huge manufacturing facility, on the plant floor every day (except Sunday), 10 to 12 hrs. a day at the time of the 2000 election. In Dade County Florida. I lived in one of the "older" neighborhoods in Fort Lausderdale. My wife and I ran crack dealers and whores out from in front of our house at least twice monthly with threats of calling police. Point is, I wasn't a "white collar" worker, I didn't live in any "gated" community, and practically every person I worked with was either African American, or immigrant Cuban. Why is it that they had no problem at all, not the least bit of trouble, registering and voting, yet all the other black voters everywhere in the state (apparently) somehow were prevented from voting? I was there, my eyes were actually on the occurences and goings on at the time. I showed up at the polls, I saw people that were given provisional ballots. I saw some of these people filling out these ballots. I saw some of these people simply throw out their ballots and walk away. When I say "saw," I mean I actually laid my personal eyeballs on these things, in person, and at the time they happened. I don't mean I watched it on CNN or read it in the NYTimes.

I understood their frustrations, believe me. I was in line for two hours to vote, as were they. I formed my opinion of these people after one of them from my neighborhood (of course, a great many voters at my polling place were from my neighborhood) later complained that he'd not been allowed to vote, when I knew better. This complaint occured as the provisional ballots were being counted in Broward County. You might not like my characterization of people that throw away provisional ballots as "lazy." That's fine. I'm not here to please you. But I was there at the time. I wasn't sitting somewhere a thousand miles away reading about it in Mother Jones or the Village Voice.


Originally posted by rich23The sheer gall of your other point is quite notewrthy. However, a moment's thought reveals that the "number that were legitimately purged" is impossible to generate, without rewriting the computer program to fulfil its original purpose before it was hijacked by corrupt officials. Nice straw man - not falling for it, sorry.

I find it amusing to no end that you can come up with the number of disenfranchised voters, yet you somehow find it impossible to obtain even an estimate of the total number of names that were removed from the rolls by the Choicepoint software. Obviously, the total, minus "your" number, would equal the number of legitimately purged names. My question would be, how many among the 55,000 that were "wrongly" purged (according to the Democratic Party) actually were wrongly purged, vs. how many only claim so?


Originally posted by rich23As for all that wind about disallowing the service vote, it seems that this is pretty one sided, as the current administration is up to the same thing, BUT targeting black servicemen to have their votes disallowed - Palast again has the details.

Snip

You can find the rest of the story here.

Now we are down to tit for tat, which is basically my original point. Additionally, as I said, the 2004 election was not what I was addressing. If I were to comment here, it would be that my own name would be purged from the rolls if I did not keep up my current address. It says so right on the back of my voter registration card. Also, the "plot" to challenge black servicepeople's votes was certainly an anemic one. By that I mean how many of these letters do you suppose would be returned? The sample "caging" list provided at your reference showed every serviceperson's address as the Naval Air Station. If indeed they lived on base, their mail would have been held there. Palast claims to have visited the home of one of the people on this list, he met the person's wife there. Do you actually believe that a man's wife would mark his mail undeliverable and send it back to the RNC?

Servicemen and women are actually pretty sharp people. They pretty much have to maintain a home address do they not? If they don't, then where do their job-related correspondences go? (Tax forms, check stubs, benefit correspondence, etc.) It's possible that a tiny portion of them might have been between home addresses at the time. The entire story seems pretty shakey to me based on this thinking.

On the other hand, the Kerry campaign, in grand liberal style, cannot be accused of any racial discrimination in their attempt to disenfranchise the entire Florida population of servicemen and women!

Harte

[edit on 6/17/2006 by Harte]



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
Please, SKMDC1. Don't you mean to say "Either Party *might* have tampered with results..."? Your bias is showing, or do you think that it's okay to tamper with an election, as long as you go ahead and lose it?


I was referring to the specific article in Rolling Stone written by RFK jr. where he details his opinions of what the *Republican* party did in 2004. Any bias is his not mine. I'm just using that article as an example of what *can posisbly* happen. It seems to me your bias is showing if you think my point about unreliable election results was biased one way or another. I'm simply concerned that with all the scrutiny of the past two elections it's become obvious how unreliable the current system is.


Originally posted by Harte
I'm not shouting anyone down here. I hear what you're saying, but I think that people that behave like you describe are just reacting to the outrageous statements that have been made by the losing side.


That's my point. It doesn't matter losing side or winning side. No one is on the winning side if we can't trust US Elections. I think any allegation of election fraud should be met with a severe amount of scrutiny and investigation regardless of the winner/loser.


Originally posted by Harte
No, I say complain all you want, just be fair about it. Use real facts. Understand that the opportunity to monkey with vote counts is available to every party, not just the one in power. Be aware that, though Bush won Florida (even the Miami Herald's own recount a year later showed it, and they admitted it,) several hundred people in Miami voted for Gore in an election that occured after these voters had died!


And that should be investigated and deplored with the same zeal as any other allegation. Me saying that any and all voting fraud allegations should be treated seriously and you saying "yeah but the Democrats do it too"... Who's bias is showing?




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join