election fraud

[defaultdotxbe]

this comes up in passing a lot but i never see much in-depth discussion, hopefully this thread can serve as a place for that

personally i have a few questions for those who beleive fraud occurred (this is all those who feel bush/republicans are guilty, and pomeroo who feels kerry/democrats are guilty)

1) how many in the opposing party(s) must be ignoring evidence for this not to be a major talking point in congress?


2) if this conspiracy extends from the municipal level all the way up to the presidential candidate how many within the part must be covering it up?

3) how many "operatives" must exist in various municipalities for this to be effective? by the time swing states are identified i would think its too late to get someone in a position to get rid of ballots, and how many counties must they be ready to try to commit fraud in to assure it will swing the results?



it seems to me that election fraud conspiracy theories suffer from the same problem as all others, too many people on both sides would have to keep quiet about it

 

[leftysergeant]

There is no conspiracy of silence in regard to what happened in Ohio. The Democrats were complaining about Blackwell's manipulations and arbitrary rulings long before the election of 2004.

There is still legal action in progress regarding the disenfranchisement of supposed felons in Florida in 2000.

The Democrats simply do not have the numbers in congress or access to the programming of the electronic devices.

Plus, very few people have access to all the information that has been brought to light because of right-wing control of the media, nor have most people the technical savvy to understand how easily the electronic devices can be manipulated.

 

[Liszt]

There is still legal action in progress regarding the disenfranchisement of supposed felons in Florida in 2000.

really? Do you have a link?

Greg Palast's The Best Democracy Money Can Buy has a pretty detailed analysis of the 2000 Florida stuff

 

[David Wong]

The Democrats simply do not have the numbers in congress or access to the programming of the electronic devices.

If only they could get the majority. Oh, wait...

Plus, very few people have access to all the information that has been brought to light because of right-wing control of the media, nor have most people the technical savvy to understand how easily the electronic devices can be manipulated.

The "right wing" control of the media? That's sarcasm, right? Every single survey ever done on the subject has over 80% of the news media leaning democrat.

 

[pomeroo]

really? Do you have a link?

Greg Palast's The Best Democracy Money Can Buy has a pretty detailed analysis of the 2000 Florida stuff

John Fund's book Stealing Elections is an invaluable resource for understanding how election fraud takes place. Greg Palast is an outright liar. Six thousand felons voted illegally in Florida in 2000 and black turnout was up by more than 300,000 as compared to 1996.

 

[Architect]

Interestingly, I was at a talk on Monday evening by the Returning Officer (i.e. the chap running the election count locally) for the Cunningham North ward which was crucial in delivering the new SNP administration at the last Scottish national election in May. There had been considerable suggestions in the press at the time regarding the effectiveness of the electronic vote counting equipment.

In Scotland (but not the rest of the UK) we still use paper ballots, because of concerns about fraud, but they are now counted digitally. The unclear votes are flagged up by the computer onto overhead screens, which are then assessed by the Returning Officer (and his staff) in full view of the agents for the main political parties. If they object to the assessment, they can do so there and then.

Apparently the coutning was considerably more accurate than traditional hand-sorting, and the public were less concerned about electoral fraud because the ballot papers were (as normal practice in the UK) stored in the event that a recount was required.

I mention this only because it seems to me that the retention of the papers does indeed put paid to conspiracy theories, other than accusations of false voters or missing ballot boxes (which presumably would apply to most electoral systems).

 

[leftysergeant]

Six thousand felons voted illegally in Florida in 2000 and black turnout was up by more than 300,000 as compared to 1996.

Is that verifiable with social security numbers and dates of birth? I know that the Secretary of State in Florida did not bother to do the research or provide any readily available means of appealing or correcting the record, despite warnings that such further efforts were required or desireable.

The fact that she was involved in any way with the Bush campaign further brings her integrity into question.

 

[Architect]

As Gerry Adams always said when campaining for Sinn Fein, "Vote, and Vote Often".....

 

[Pardalis]

What are the news about Palast's caging list? The Democratic party hasn't picked up on it yet?

 

[pomeroo]

There is no conspiracy of silence in regard to what happened in Ohio. The Democrats were complaining about Blackwell's manipulations and arbitrary rulings long before the election of 2004.

There is still legal action in progress regarding the disenfranchisement of supposed felons in Florida in 2000.

The Democrats simply do not have the numbers in congress or access to the programming of the electronic devices.

Plus, very few people have access to all the information that has been brought to light because of


right-wing control of the media,

How can an intelligent man use this phrase? The right has Fox News and talk radio; the left has everything else. Survey after survey has shown a pronounced media bias to the left.

nor have most people the technical savvy to understand how easily the electronic devices can be manipulated.

Most people lack the intellectual curiosity to learn that exactly TWO counties in Ohio used Diebold machines in 2004 and Kerry won the larger of them. Democratic pollster Mark Blumenthal has utterly demolished the innumerate claims of Bob Fitrakis and Steven Freeman (see pollster.com, specifically the four-part series, "Was RFK, Jr. Right About the Exit Polls?")

 

[Brainster]

There is a lot of conspiracy theory nonsense about election fraud, but unfortunately the partisans for each side only recognize the nuttiness of the claims from the other side. So it boils down to politics, which is where this thread really belongs despite the fact that much of it is "woo".

 

[dudalb]

As Gerry Adams always said when campaining for Sinn Fein, "Vote, and Vote Often".....

Or as a Campaign Worker for Boss Tweed said in "Gangs Of New York",
"You Only Voted Once? You Call That Doing Your Civic Duty?".

 

[dudalb]

There is a lot of conspiracy theory nonsense about election fraud, but unfortunately the partisans for each side only recognize the nuttiness of the claims from the other side. So it boils down to politics, which is where this thread really belongs despite the fact that much of it is "woo".

I so agree. I want some evidence from somebody who does not have a Ax to grind about the 2004 election before I buy into any conspiracy theories.

 

[leftysergeant]

If only they could get the majority. Oh, wait...



The "right wing" control of the media? That's sarcasm, right? Every single survey ever done on the subject has over 80% of the news media leaning democrat.

The owners of the major news outlets exercise control over what stories get pushed off the front pages. They pick the editorial staff. Electing a Democratic majority is hardly a high priority of entrepreneurs who wish to see the ownership of news outlets further consolidated.

It doesn't matter how liberal the writers and repporters are if the editors are Friedmanites.

 

[David Wong]

There is a lot of conspiracy theory nonsense about election fraud, but unfortunately the partisans for each side only recognize the nuttiness of the claims from the other side. So it boils down to politics, which is where this thread really belongs despite the fact that much of it is "woo".

That, and the fact that there has likely never been a completely fraud-free election in the history of democracy. The system is imperfect, and nobody cares when one side wins 80-20. But when you have a razor-close election you can theorize until the end of time about a thousand votes here and five thousand voters there. If the electronic machines are set to create a paper trail, the accusation will simply shift to claim the paper trail has been faked.

We'll have this every time an election is close, regardless of the voting method.

 

[Architect]

And those of us who are in countries employing single transferable voting are always guaranteed to have close elections....

 

[defaultdotxbe]

thank you to leftysergeant for trying to answer at least one of my questions, however it seems to boil down to conspiracy mad-libs

"people are speaking out, but we dont hear about it because of the <group of bad guys>-controlled media"

is there evidence of liberal writers having their stories suppressed? do people talk of hard-hitting leftist articles that never seem to get published? (im honestly asking here)

i was the editor-in-chief of my college newspaper for one and a half semesters, and im quite familiar with pressures to print the "proper" type of articles (in my case it was local fluff and national news, they didnt want us running anything critical of the school or school board, but we did anyway, so i wonder if such pressures are more successful on the professional level)

i honestly hope the answer isnt that other conspiracy staple "they are afraid of losing their jobs"

 

[rwguinn]

The owners of the major news outlets exercise control over what stories get pushed off the front pages. They pick the editorial staff. Electing a Democratic majority is hardly a high priority of entrepreneurs who wish to see the ownership of news outlets further consolidated.

It doesn't matter how liberal the writers and repporters are if the editors are Friedmanites.

Take it to politics!
We all know that the Republicans control the media and conspire to keep the Democrats disenfranchised, except when the Democrats are in the White House, when it's the other way around.

 

[pomeroo]

The owners of the major news outlets exercise control over what stories get pushed off the front pages. They pick the editorial staff. Electing a Democratic majority is hardly a high priority of entrepreneurs who wish to see the ownership of news outlets further consolidated.

It doesn't matter how liberal the writers and repporters are if the editors are Friedmanites.

You are simply wrong. The major dailies in this country, with the exception of the Wall Street Journal are liberal-left. The shamelessness of the N.Y. Times, the Washington Post, and the L.A. Times in blacking-out all good news from Iraq, while shouting bad news from the rooftops, serves the national interest very poorly.

 

[Brainster]

this comes up in passing a lot but i never see much in-depth discussion, hopefully this thread can serve as a place for that

personally i have a few questions for those who beleive fraud occurred (this is all those who feel bush/republicans are guilty, and pomeroo who feels kerry/democrats are guilty)

1) how many in the opposing party(s) must be ignoring evidence for this not to be a major talking point in congress?

2) if this conspiracy extends from the municipal level all the way up to the presidential candidate how many within the part must be covering it up?

3) how many "operatives" must exist in various municipalities for this to be effective? by the time swing states are identified i would think its too late to get someone in a position to get rid of ballots, and how many counties must they be ready to try to commit fraud in to assure it will swing the results?

it seems to me that election fraud conspiracy theories suffer from the same problem as all others, too many people on both sides would have to keep quiet about it

Election fraud is probably generally only done on a local, even individual basis. Even if the Diebold machines were set to change a fixed percentage of votes to the Republicans from the Democrats, how many people would know about it? If they're sensible only a very, very few. This is the flip side of the argument that too many people would know and one would blab; if you're trying to arrange a conspiracy like this, you make darn sure that only a very select few know about it.

Of course, in machine politics (like Boss Tweed in NY or Papa Daley in Chicago) things can be different because there is such pervasive control of the levers of power.