With voter fraud, faulty machines and intimidation how can votes be tallied accuratly.

Ok, let me just say this first. This post is not because Obama won and it's not to knock on voters either. I would of written this either way. I don't like Obama or Romney. More so Romney but you know...what are you gonna do, anyway, back to the matter at hand.

I'm asking this mostly to those who insists on voting. You can do what you want it's totally your right to do so and I understand this 100%. But what do you do when none represent you or your ideals? Do you still vote? If both their policies goes against every fiber of you being, will you still vote? I'm from Canada and I haven't voted in many years because I find those candidate don't diverse my vote. Well, Layton was the one for me but he's dead now so... Here's an other question. Who do you decide to vote for when one of the candidates only continues what Bush was told to do and the other candidate wouldn't think twice about outsourcing your job or liquidating the company you working for? I wouldn't vote for either.

An other issue I have and this happens in Canada as well, I'm sure. How can a person have confidence in the democratic system when you have voter fraud in mass? There is no way in hell the votes can be tallied with accuracy if you say any different you are wrong. And voter fraud cases are compiled of only the ones that get caught. Not to mention the reports of intimidation, although this is pretty easy to circumvent. Just tell them what they want to know, problem solved.

Defective Voting Machines


Example of voting fraud at executive level


Voter fraud suspected, Where there's smoke there's fire.

That's what I was talking about earlier today with someone. Those states involved with the voter fraud should be disqualified to even place a vote. Electoral or Popular.

I don't understand how America can say by bombing Iraq, Libya the USA wanted to put democracy into those great nations, yet America still has no democracy as the UK has not either, I feel it's well gone the time the USA was bombed by China to show us what free people should be like.
That election in America stinks right from start to end, I could see on SKY TV in the UK that some whites were being prevented from getting to voting stations as they had no gas among other things, no sorry not a good election, he never won by fair means.

reply to post by Alternative4u


He didn't win by fair means the last election either. The seat was practically given to him. Then you wonder why people like me don't even want to bother voting. There's absolutely no competition at all.

in the 2004 elections W. got more votes than any winning candidate ever did.
but, as it turns out, the loser, j. kerry, also got more votes than any other winning candidate ever did.

it seems that the proverbial 'ballot box' was being 'stuffed', probably for bush [recall his low popularity #'s] to win, because, agin a coincidence, his family was the owners of the diebold corporation who made both the voting machines and the software for most of the country!

i have not heard this issue discussed this time around, not sure if diebold is still involved with this?
i would suspect, if that is still the case, that many of the voter fraud issues being 'exposed' are in reality, just a smokescreen for what may be really be the big issue here ... a 'backdoor' in the computer software allowing more direct control over the numbers.

This is a question to Americans. What's the deal with those voting machines anyway? Do you have a choice to put it on paper instead? It's too easy to control tech now a days. I wouldn't trust it as far as I could throw it.

reply to post by XLR8R


When I voted, my voter card was on paper and I had to put it into a machine. They didn't have any type of computer to vote from. They just had private booths, then you write on your paper which looked like a scantron sheet and after you were done you stuck into this machine.

reply to post by Manhater


When I went to vote for a third party candidate, it was the old fashioned way, with paper ballots that you mark with a pencil, and put in a machine that reads them when you're done. I was so happy. I was dreading the Diebold election machines, only to find out that my county is poor and sparsely populated, so there was no need to buy those new-fangled votin' computers.

reply to post by tinhattribunal


Oh! there was so much box stuffing it was ridiculous. As for the hardware and software companies for the voting machines being owned by one of the candidates should of raised major eyebrows. But I guess people rather turn a blind eye and pretend all is ok.

reply to post by Manhater


This method should be nation wide. You have the actual voter card inscribed with your choice as proof fed through a pretty reliable machine. Better than the Lever operated voting machines. Can you have an more complicated way of voting.

reply to post by XLR8R


Yeah, I totally agree with the paper method rather than computer method. Computers are so crooked and it's too easy for programmers to hack them. Which most likely happened anyways. If it can be fixed, it can be broken. And the computer method is a broken system.

Romney had more votes in NC than Obama did and that was at 12AM

President (N.C. Totals)
Candidate
Votes
Percent
R
Mitt Romney
W
2,274,793
50%
D
Barack Obama (i)
2,177,794
48%
L
Gary Johnson
44,794
1%
(Last updated 12:37 am, Precincts: 100% reporting)