2004 Electoral Disaster (truthout.org)

Originally posted by Mynaeris I am sorry to ask this question but I can't seem to find the figure you're quoting on any of the CNN.com elections results pages.

First: understand the US is not a democracy, it's a republic. www.cnn.com... National vote tally: 115,409,172 www.cnn.com... Ohio Bush victory margin: 136,483 If Ohio came in favoring Kerry, he would be the new president-elect. So, the margin of victory/loss is 0.11826% (rounded up to 0.12%) as a ratio of all votes cast on a national scale. (or 2.5% of all votes cast in Ohio) A very slim margin of victory (or loss). Reviewing the national popular vote is an interesting excercise, but matters not at all for selecting the president.

Originally posted by LadyV

Originally posted by jrsdls
SO, how do you come up with that 0.12%?

Um...I do believe you have to factor in those that voted for neither party....they didn't want Bush in either. They "do" count too ya know.

while I will agree with you on that point, neither did they all want liberalism. it seems that the logic you are using is flawed. not everyone who voted for Kerry was because they wanted him, it was more of an anti-bush vote, rather than a pro-kerry vote.

show me the formula you are using. It seems that the President has a mandate from the American people.

Skeptic: That is some creative mathematics - although logical. However taking it out of the overall context is wrong. We could apply this to any of the tens of states that Kerry lost and say no Bush won by this or that percentage. if we took a state like New York we could conclude that kerry won the election? However at least I do understand how this figure came about.

Thanks.

[edit on 8-11-2004 by Mynaeris]

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Mynaeris
I am sorry to ask this question but I can't seem to find the figure you're quoting on any of the CNN.com elections results pages.

First: understand the US is not a democracy, it's a republic.

www.cnn.com...
National vote tally: 115,409,172

www.cnn.com...
Ohio Bush victory margin: 136,483


If Ohio came in favoring Kerry, he would be the new president-elect. So, the margin of victory/loss is 0.11826% (rounded up to 0.12%) as a ratio of all votes cast on a national scale. (or 2.5% of all votes cast in Ohio)

A very slim margin of victory (or loss). Reviewing the national popular vote is an interesting excercise, but matters not at all for selecting the president.

SO, using your logic, look at PA, what was Kerry's victory margin there? I mean if you are going to use that logic, why not look at Fla, Alaska, Wisconsin. You can't cherry-pick your states, that's what Gore wanted to do in Fla in 2000.

[edit on 8/11/04 by jrsdls]

Originally posted by LadyV
That makes no sense what so ever.....why does it matter where it comes from...the truth is the truth regardless of where it's from. You tell SO it shouldn't be believed because it's "from" a certain site, yet you won't believe it it's not from a certain site...

LadyV - I agree with you, and I disagree.

The truth is the truth, no matter where it comes from.
Absolutely true. HOWEVER, some places are notorious
for telling 'truth' that isn't. And some have a reputation
for telling untruth, when in fact they really DO tell truth.

It's an amazingly strange world we live in, eh?

Try telling some of the lefties here that something Newsmax
or Fox is reporting is true and can be trusted. They won't
believe it. The facts could be there that Newsmax or Fox
are absolutely correct in their reporting, but because some
on the radical left refuse to see the truth of a situation,
they won't believe anything that Fox or Newsmax say.

And honestly, I don't believe anything CNN or CBS says.
If someone posted something that they were reporting,
I'd have to see it backed up by at least two or three other
sites before I'd consider it to be remotely true.

Said it in another thread, and I'll say it in this one. If Kerry had won, I believe very few of you folks would think this was an "election disaster" that needed to be scrutinized for any flaw or irregularity. You didn't win, so now you're gonna say it was rigged.

(Go ahead and lie and say you would still think this was an issue if Kerry won.)

The truth is probably closer to the fact that both sides cheat and yes, it has been going on probably since there have been elections. Human nature doesn't change.

Ambient, I agree with you, there have been problems on both sides, the 4000 votes on the machines in Philly, the tire slashing on the Republican get out the vote cars in Wisconsin. To be Honest, I would probably look closely at the results if Kerry had won. I would however support his presidency, unlike some Dems on this board.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
In reality, the republic came just 0.12% of all votes shy of picking "liberalism" (in your words).

That would have been interesting. Looking at this map,
it certainly seems to me that most of America is conservative.
(or at least anti-Kerry)

Kerry appealed to the pockets of liberalism in the big cities. If
Kerry had gotten in, he would have been VERY out of touch
with most of America.



[edit on 11/8/2004 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by LadyV

Originally posted by jrsdls
truthout.org, now that a site that not partisan at all? come back when you have information that does not come from a democratic sponsored site.

That makes no sense what so ever.....why does it matter where it comes from...the truth is the truth regardless of where it's from. You tell SO it shouldn't be believed because it's "from" a certain site, yet you won't believe it it's not from a certain site.....bad form my dear man! It really shouldn't matter...what should matter is that the information be confirmed and then dealt with accordingly, not just totally dismissed because it's not from a site you prefer.

Ahhhh, but it does LadyV, both the dems and republicans follow Lee Atwater's proclaimation that truth does not matter, perception is the only thing that is important. According to this doctrine you must get your perception "out there" as fast and violently as possible so that you control the spin. Both parties do this, the republican's are just WAY better at it.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
America chose Conservative values over liberalism

In reality, the republic came just 0.12% of all votes shy of picking "liberalism" (in your words).

That would have been interesting. Looking at this map,
it certainly seems to me that most of America is conservative.
Kerry appealed to the pockets of liberalism in the big cities. If
Kerry had gotten in, he would have been VERY out of touch
with most of America.

I love that map flyers fan.

[edit on 8/11/04 by jrsdls]

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
Said it in another thread, and I'll say it in this one. If Kerry had won, I believe very few of you folks would think this was an "

Your dead wrong! I don't give a fly's butt who it is, if I start sniffing and smell fraud...I'd look...fair is fair....I will say though, that I bet if you lost, you'd be yelling louder than what we're hearing now!

Note: By "you" I mean as in a whole, not you personally.

Originally posted by Mynaeris We could apply this to any of the tens of states that Kerry lost and say no Bush won by this or that percentage.

Well, only key states such as Ohio and Floriday makes sense... as these are states where if Kerry won, he'd be the president-elect.

Originally posted by jrsdls
I love that map flyers fan.

Looking at America, county by county,
is VERY interesting. If Kerry had gotten in,
he would have had coastal big city support,
and pockets of high minority (black and hispanic)
support (S.Florida & Texas/Mexico boarders).

I find it interesting that people say New York and
California are liberal states. In reality - NYC and L.A./S.F.
are liberal CITIES ... the states themselves really aren't.
(or they weren't THIS time)

Originally posted by FlyersFan Looking at this map, it certainly seems to me that most of America is conservative.

I see a non-urban population (and urban) fooled into believing there must be a choice between one of two extreme ideologies. Also, people... this is a republic. The dominance of one color on a regional map does not matter at all. What matters is the electoral college selection process. And that process came very close to picking the alternative to Bush.

Win,Lose or Draw - ALL voter fraud should be exposed and prosecuted no matter the party affiliation or winner.

Milwaulkee (sp?) city ward 110% voter turnout anyone? my my wasn't there word of more than 100% turn-out elsewhere as well.

ID really needs to be required at the poll. Claims of intimidation fall flat when one realizes most are not claiming this when cashing a check, buying liquor or many of the other mundane daily occurances where ID is needed.

The idea of receipts from an electronic voting machine sounds OK until one considers how easy they would be to counterfit. Maybe if they printed at a monitored printer and were verified by the exiting voter as correct, then deposited in a locked container for the purpose of a recount or other legal challenge.

If electronic voting is un-reliable then we need to go back to the tried and true paper ballot (no chad) marked with an indelible pen - if you can't properly fill it out tough luck.

I would like to see it mandatory to vote for anyone who is 18 years old and over like my home country Australia. I would also like to have the option of voting online. Why cannot they simply give each registered voter a unique password and you can then log on and vote from home and they can tally the votes instantly? At the end of the process you can print off a receipt with your choices so we have a paper trail. I would also like to see this voting system audited by the UN so we don't have the electoral fraud we have right now.

It's starting to look like all someone has to do is
buy the big city votes and you can be
president.

Buy Chicago, L.A./S.F., Miami, NYC, Baltimore ...
Dallas and Philadelphia - and you are well on your
way to being president of the United States ....
even though the rest of the country wouldn't
want any part of you.

Chicago (Illinois) - 21
L.A./S.F. - (California) 55
Miami (Florida) - 27
NYC (New York) - 31
Baltimore (Maryland) - 10
Dallas (Texas) - 34
Philadelphia (Pennsylvania) - 21

199 Electoral Votes because of big cities
and how they swing. That's a BIG chunk!

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Looking at this map, it certainly seems to me that most of America is conservative.

I see a non-urban population (and urban) fooled into believing there must be a choice between one of two extreme ideologies.
Also, people... this is a republic. The dominance of one color on a regional map does not matter at all.

I REALLY agree with you ... America needs to wake up to the Green
party, the Constitution party, the Independents. In my opinion, it
was almost criminal that they were not allowed at the debates.

I also REALLY agree with you ... I wish folks would remember that
this country is a republic, with democratic institutions (our voting
is a democratic institution WITHIN our republic).

BUT ... I feel the dominance of one color on a map does matter.
It tells me that if Kerry had won, it would have been a small area
of the country that would have wanted him. It would have been
some of the big cities, and pockets of high minority (hispanic/black)
voters (don't flame me saying I'm a bigot - I'm looking at the
county map and going by the stats that say that). Kerry would
have had the required electoral count (which I feel is VERY
important because of states rights), but he really would have been
out of touch with a great deal of the country.

So, I DO see the color map as tell-tale. Honestly, I would LOVE to
have seen Red, Blue, Green, Orange, Purple counties representing
different parties and then I would have known that people were
able to vote closer to what they wanted. Like I said ... the fact that
the Greens, The Constitution Party, and The Independents were
not in the debates comes VERY close (in my opinion) to voter
disenfranchisement. Nadar was kicked off the ballot in Pennsylvania
because of a big push by the Dems. This was ANTI-CHOICE activity
by the Dems. They weren't letting voters actually vote for who they
wanted. I understand that there had to be a certain ## of signatures
to get him on the ballot ... I respect that the court had to follow the
laws when the dems challenged Nadar. But ... I think the laws need
to be changed.

Flyers fan, you left out Washington DC, They have 3 electorial votes. I personally don't think they should have any. They are not a state. If you give them electorial votes then why not PR, or Guam or any other territory? If you don't have seantors then you should not have eletorial votes.

Originally posted by FlyersFan BUT ... I feel the dominance of one color on a map does matter.

No, it doesn't. Because the overwhelming majority of US land is open space, color maps are pointless... unless the coyotes suddenly get a vote. And cities do matter, a lot. They are responsible for the overwhelming majority of the gross national product. Why should the economic engine of this country be forced to follow a political ideology it does not agree with?