Do you trust the US government to run an honest election

[Ivan Seeking]

Very late edit: Please make that second option "significant election fraud"; meaning enough to affect the outcome of the election. Any votes already made in error should be clarified and I will post the correction here. I sure don't want to start any polling fraud conspiracy theories! :rofl:



From another post, but it applies well here.

We recently had a very uncharacteristic show of outrage on the floor of congress by a black congresswoman from Florida. She accused Bush of a coup d'état. Not so well known but widely reported at the time, blacks in Florida claimed that they were prevented from voting by “Republican thugs”. This fact was lost in the counting frenzy. Of course, Florida, Governend by Bush's brother, was also the swing state that got Bush elected.

The congresswoman was demanding that the UN monitor our election. Rightfully so I think.

Maybe I'm mostly alone on this one but I'm afraid the problem may be just that bad. IMO, honestly people, I'm not inflating things here just to start a fight, I feel there is so much smoke around the Bush dynasty that a fire is nearly certain - I wonder if this congresswoman might not have been well within the bounds of reason. If what the blacks claimed in Florida did happen then this may have thrown a Presidential election. Stop and consider what that would really mean.

So as a follow up question, who here would support a resolution to have the UN monitor the US presidential election this year?

[Hurkyl]

Frankly, I get the impression that none of the outcomes of such a resolution would sway many opinions. First off, there's the problem that many would find the very idea an insult. Of course, if USA refuses many would claim something's up. If the UN inspectors don't find any tampering, they were either comprimised, or the US interfered with the investigation. If the UN inspectors find tampering, they're just exacting revenge.

[JohnDubYa]

Did Republicans ask for UN or National Guard help when the dead voted for LBJ in his run for governor?

[russ_watters]

Frankly, I get the impression that any of the outcomes of such a resolution would sway many opinions. First off, there's the problem that many would find the very idea an insult. Of course, if USA refuses many would claim something's up. If the UN inspectors don't find any tampering, they were either comprimised, or the US interfered with the investigation. If the UN inspectors find tampering, they're just exacting revenge. Agreed. I am very much opposed to the idea.

[Prometheus]

First off, there's the problem that many would find the very idea an insult.

Of course, many would consider it an insult. Unfortunately, many people also feel that fraud was committed in the last election, and that this fraud swayed the course of the election. People who believe this consider the last election an insult.

Of course, if USA refuses many would claim something's up. If the UN inspectors don't find any tampering, they were either comprimised, or the US interfered with the investigation. If the UN inspectors find tampering, they're just exacting revenge.

I find this a poor justification. If the UN did find tampering, what would that mean?

If the UN did not find tampering, perhaps people who feel that the Republicans committed a major act of fraud would be less sure of this feeling.

I wonder why you put such a negative spin on the possible outcomes.

[ray b]

first problem is the US goverment never has run a election
the states are in charge but they all sub out the job to local
county political hacks
perhaps the idea of the feds running a election would be a better idea then the current system as would direct election of our presidents under a one man one vote system

we have had dead voters and many other frauds including a result thrown out by the courts, in a local mayor election in the last few years here in miami fla
:surprise:

[Janitor]

Democrats in New Mexico have a sordid history of vote fraud, by the way.

[Ivan Seeking]

An interesting aside: Some may remember that just before Ross Perot dropped out of the the '92 election, he claimed that Republcan thugs ruined his daughters wedding and threatened he and his familiy. I think he actually used the word "thugs". A bit of a coincidence eh?

A quick check produced this as a basic reference to this event.
Discouraged by a reinvigorated Democratic party ticket...as well as Perot's claim that Republican operatives were attempting to disrupt his daughter's wedding, Perot announced his withdrawal from the campaign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot

[JohnDubYa]

An interesting aside: Some may remember that just before Ross Perot dropped out of the the '92 election, he claimed that Republcan thugs ruined his daughters wedding and threatened he and his familiy.

Heh. I forgot all about those claims. Perot was certainly a loon. My favorite was the supposed kidnapping attempt the North Vietnamese made on his family. Good stuff, H.!

[Shahil]

I actually think that UN monitors should be dispatched during voting. After what Ivan Seeking said and the fact that a whole lot of the world weren't very impressed after the Florida debacle, wouldn't UN monitors be a definite for the elections.

As for the corruption of these monitors, well if we can't trust the UN, who can we trust!! :wink:

Anyway, on the election procedure - In SA we have a centrally-based IEC (Independent Electoral Commission). Also, even though they're independent, they are audited. They've run 5 elections so far and the biggest problem they had was alleged cheating in rural area of the province I live in (KwaZulu Natal). The case was dropped though meaning that the IEC is doing/did a brilliant job. I'm kinda against the sub-contracting coz it'll mean differences in the voting technique at different locations which I'm against.

[JohnDubYa]

Sour grapes are driving this UN voting oversight demand. Those that lost the election desire oversight because such action would be considered an acknowledgement that the 2000 elections were somehow rigged.

In other words, this isn't about the 2004 elections at all. Some are still fighting to place an asterisk besides Bush' 2000 victory and this is their latest scheme. They want history books to say "The 2000 election was so badly rigged that in 2004 the US even had to call the United Nations to oversee the elections."

After seeing what happened with the Oil for Food program, I am not sure I trust the UN anyway.

[phatmonky]

yeah there will be some independent fraud, but nothing on a large scale.
You can't expect anything else in ANY election process of this size, anywhere in the world.

[phatmonky]

So as a follow up question, who here would support a resolution to have the UN monitor the US presidential election this year?

I would not.

[Robert Zaleski]

I believe Kofi Annan said last week that no UN monitors will be provided for our presidential election. Thank you Eddie Bernice Johnson D-Texas and ten democrat accomplices.

[Shahil]

I believe Kofi Annan said last week that no UN monitors will be provided...

What about EU or AU observers?? I'm not trying to argue that rigging will take place nor am I arguing that I think the 2000 elections were rigged - I'm just saying that IF there is a reason to believe vote rigging will occur, won't bringing in independant observers be the only logical thing to do. It doesn''t matter who wins the elections - the main thing is that it will be fair. That's is, after all, all that matters.

[Entropy]

I don't vote, but I believe the American voting system is pretty good.

[phatmonky]

What about EU or AU observers?? I'm not trying to argue that rigging will take place nor am I arguing that I think the 2000 elections were rigged - I'm just saying that IF there is a reason to believe vote rigging will occur, won't bringing in independant observers be the only logical thing to do. It doesn''t matter who wins the elections - the main thing is that it will be fair. That's is, after all, all that matters.

Why should there be? Fraud will happen in the EU election, the AU election. It happened in the last Indian election. It's impossible to stop it.

Are monitors going to personally handle the entire election, and then be audited in some miraculous manner to stop any fraud? No, of couse not.

[phatmonky]

I don't vote, but I believe the American voting system is pretty good.
why dont you vote?

[kat]

I think he may be too young. (?)

[russ_watters]

Why should there be? Fraud will happen in the EU election, the AU election. It happened in the last Indian election. It's impossible to stop it. Maybe I need to clarify my vote (I voted for the first option). Fraud certainly will occur in small, isolated cases. There are something like half a million election officials and a few will choose to break the law. It can't be stopped.

I answered with the first option as a response to the level of fraud accused in the last election.

[JohnDubYa]

First of all, no fraud has been proven. Second, it appears that if any did occur, it was very isolated. What percentage of voters were potentially defrauded, in anyone's estimate?

[Ivan Seeking]

Heh. I forgot all about those claims. Perot was certainly a loon. My favorite was the supposed kidnapping attempt the North Vietnamese made on his family. Good stuff, H.!

So you just assume that it never happened? How blindly patriotic of you.

[JohnDubYa]

Maybe, but wasn't there also an issue in Wisconsin where voters were voting multiple times? If I recall correctly, Gore benefitted in that situation.

Every election we have situations where someone screws up. The only difference in 2000 was that Florida was one of the last swing-vote states and the voting was incredibly tight.

[kcballer21]

I think the notion of a nonpartisan organization monitoring any government activity would be a good idea in theory. The problem would be finding individuals that could really be deemed unbiased. The UN has been shown to have its own agenda on more than one occasion, which is unfortunate.

JohnDubYa First of all, no fraud has been proven. Second, it appears that if any did occur, it was very isolated. What percentage of voters were potentially defrauded, in anyone's estimate?

What percentage is acceptable?

[phatmonky]

So you just assume that it never happened? How blindly patriotic of you.


ummmm, this is an odd response.

[Ivan Seeking]

ummmm, this is an odd response.

Not when you consider that blind trust drives many Bush loyalists.

[Ivan Seeking]

Maybe, but wasn't there also an issue in Wisconsin where voters were voting multiple times? If I recall correctly, Gore benefitted in that situation.

Every election we have situations where someone screws up. The only difference in 2000 was that Florida was one of the last swing-vote states and the voting was incredibly tight.

Clearly the Congresswoman from Florida did not feel that this was just a screw up. If there was a concerted effort to prevent blacks from voting I can definitely see her point. There is a difference between cheating and the forceful overthrow of an election. Not to say that I condone cheating, but small town diehards have probably been stuffing ballot boxes from day one. Intimidation - the loss of the right to vote - would be another thing altogether. No doubt this has gone on in the South in decades passed.

[Njorl]

Sour grapes are driving this UN voting oversight demand. Those that lost the election desire oversight because such action would be considered an acknowledgement that the 2000 elections were somehow rigged.

In other words, this isn't about the 2004 elections at all. Some are still fighting to place an asterisk besides Bush' 2000 victory and this is their latest scheme. They want history books to say "The 2000 election was so badly rigged that in 2004 the US even had to call the United Nations to oversee the elections."

After seeing what happened with the Oil for Food program, I am not sure I trust the UN anyway.

You claim to know the motives of other people in this matter? I would think you would be working in Las Vegas at the poker tables with these marvelous mind-reading skills you claim to have.

There has already been one Republican attempt to illegally sway the 2004 Florida election. Republicans attempted to carry out a secret purge of felons from the voter rolls. All felons who served a year or more are supposed to be stricken. That's just fine. However, Governer Jeb Bush fought the disclosure of this list tooth-and-nail. It turns out, many who did not qualify for striking were stricken, also, virtually no Hispanics were on the list. Most Hispanics in Florida are Cuban, and vote Republican.



Just what exactly happened with the "Oil for Food" program? Are you talking about those interesting accusations of bribery that were floated by Ahmed Chalabi, and bought into completely by the right-wing media? Most people have backed off those charges after finding out Chalabi was an Iranian agent. Paul Volcker was put in charge of an investigation, and, miraculously, all of Chalabi's documentary evidence of the corruption vanished.

Njorl

[Ivan Seeking]

Maybe I need to clarify my vote (I voted for the first option). Fraud certainly will occur in small, isolated cases. There are something like half a million election officials and a few will choose to break the law. It can't be stopped.

I answered with the first option as a response to the level of fraud accused in the last election.

This is certainly in the spirit of the poll: Do you trust the process. Obviously some isolated cases of fraud will happen. The question is really more one of scale and significance. I could have worded this better, as usual.

[Ivan Seeking]

There has already been one Republican attempt to illegally sway the 2004 Florida election. Republicans attempted to carry out a secret purge of felons from the voter rolls. All felons who served a year or more are supposed to be stricken. That's just fine. However, Governer Jeb Bush fought the disclosure of this list tooth-and-nail. It turns out, many who did not qualify for striking were stricken, also, virtually no Hispanics were on the list. Most Hispanics in Florida are Cuban, and vote Republican.

Wow! When did this happen? Do you have a link?

[JohnDubYa]

There is a difference between cheating and the forceful overthrow of an election. Not to say that I condone cheating, but small town diehards have probably been stuffing ballot boxes from day one.

Sounds like you are saying that cheating is no big deal.

What's the difference if I intimidate you into not voting, or simply stuffing a ballot that negates your vote? Both are illegal and the effect is the same.

[JohnDubYa]

So you just assume that it never happened? How blindly patriotic of you.

If anything, you have blindly accepted the word of a loon. What's worse?

The FBI investigated the wedding photo controversy and found nothing. And given H. Ross Perot's frequent delusions of grandeur, we can safely say that no such plot ever occurred.

[Njorl]

This has much of the story.

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040712/NEWS/407110366

Njorl

[russ_watters]

This is certainly in the spirit of the poll: Do you trust the process. Obviously some isolated cases of fraud will happen. The question is really more one of scale and significance. I could have worded this better, as usual. Whether isolated fraud, votor incompetence, or counting errors, the problem in Florida was that all of those issues add up to a statistical tie. In other words, all the sources of error added together were larger than the margin of victory. Our electoral system is not equipped to handle that. A lot was made of the hanging chads - fixing that with electronic machines will eliminate recounts and vote ambiguity, but that's not even half of the problem.

[russ_watters]

This has much of the story.

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040712/NEWS/407110366

Njorl How much of the article did you read? It seems to refute your implication of impropriety.

Regarding the oil-for-food program, the only question is the depth of the problem. Do you remember the photos/videos of the warehouses of hoarded food captured in Iraq?

[JohnDubYa]

How much of the article did you read? It seems to refute your implication of impropriety.

Exactly my impressions.

[Prometheus]

Whether isolated fraud, votor incompetence, or counting errors, the problem in Florida was that all of those issues add up to a statistical tie. In other words, all the sources of error added together were larger than the margin of victory. Our electoral system is not equipped to handle that. A lot was made of the hanging chads - fixing that with electronic machines will eliminate recounts and vote ambiguity, but that's not even half of the problem.

I agree with this. Florida was a statistical tie. Who cares who won by 100 votes, when the margin of error was 600,000?

There was no mechanism in place for how to handle a statistical tie.

Unfortunately, the country wallowed in conflict and poor behavior until the Supreme Court decided to be the biggest jerks of all.

[JohnDubYa]

Because they decided against your candidate?

The Supreme Court would have pissed off half the country no matter what they decided.

[Shahil]

Maybe, but wasn't there also an issue in Wisconsin where voters were voting multiple times? If I recall correctly, Gore benefitted in that situation.

Every election we have situations where someone screws up. The only difference in 2000 was that Florida was one of the last swing-vote states and the voting was incredibly tight.

Does it matter who benefiited here? The fact is the the elections were NOT free and fair because of the multiple voting. That's the problem. Alongst with other posts here, I'm just sensing some side taking (ie. Democrats/Republicans) Can anybody understand that it's the electoral process, no the result which, I think, should be debated.

Why should there be? Fraud will happen in the EU election, the AU election. It happened in the last Indian election. It's impossible to stop it.

Are monitors going to personally handle the entire election, and then be audited in some miraculous manner to stop any fraud? No, of couse not.
.

Election monitors, as I beleive and have seen in my country - are placed in the aforementioned problem areas. If the observers are bribed, well then you got a problem there but, but in most of the cases, they're not and they do stop any voting irregularites. Also, even if ALL but one of the observers are bribed, your election is still free-er and fairer than it woul;d have been without the observers as one of your electoral stations, which was going to have irregularities, was prevented from having problems.

[Njorl]

How much of the article did you read? It seems to refute your implication of impropriety.

I read the entire article. It does not even slightly refute the implications. It gives an explanation of how it happened. So? It is always good to have a justification for nefarious activities.

[edited to add] By the way, the ACLU had to sue the state of Florida to get a copy of the list, otherwise this fraud upon the electorate would have been successful.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/01/florida.elections/


Regarding the oil-for-food program, the only question is the depth of the problem. Do you remember the photos/videos of the warehouses of hoarded food captured in Iraq?[QUOTE=russ_watters]

There was surely corruption. There was always plenty of evidence of the goods that were destined for Iraq going to Syria and Jordan. That is not what is meant by "The Oil for Food Scandal", though. "The oil for food scandal" refers to the apparently fabricated evidence provided by Ahmed Chalabi that a large number of UN and European officials took enormous bribes from Saddam Hussein. As soon as a reputable investigator was sent to inquire, all documentary evidence was mysteriously destroyed by hackers, according to Chalabi. Right-wingers still use this "scandal" to denounce the UN. Considering that later information indicates that Chalabi is an Iranian agent, the motive becomes clear - a weaker UN allows Iran more freedom to develop nuclear weapons.

Njorl

[phatmonky]

Election monitors, as I beleive and have seen in my country - are placed in the aforementioned problem areas. If the observers are bribed, well then you got a problem there but, but in most of the cases, they're not and they do stop any voting irregularites. Also, even if ALL but one of the observers are bribed, your election is still free-er and fairer than it woul;d have been without the observers as one of your electoral stations, which was going to have irregularities, was prevented from having problems.


How do you know where a problem area is? You don't!

'Free-er and fairer' at the cost of what?? Spending hundreds of millions to arbitrarily place observers around?? The amount of fraud is estimated to be so small that the margin of actual human error is greater than the problem.
The hubbub about florida was/is/and will be overblown by a huge factor.
There were/will be other swing states that are highly contested.

There's no need to bring in outside of observers when there are inherant checks and balances already.

[Ivan Seeking]

How do you know where a problem area is? You don't!

'Free-er and fairer' at the cost of what?? Spending hundreds of millions to arbitrarily place observers around?? The amount of fraud is estimated to be so small that the margin of actual human error is greater than the problem.
The hubbub about florida was/is/and will be overblown by a huge factor.
There were/will be other swing states that are highly contested.

There's no need to bring in outside of observers when there are inherant checks and balances already.

What about voter confidence? If a significant percentage of voting Americans no longer trust the system then the basis for our democratic process is lost. The perception of significant fraud may be just as significant as fraud itself.

Also, perhaps the inherent checks and balances have failed - I think this was Russ's point.

The amount of fraud is estimated to be so small that the margin of actual human error is greater than the problem.

This ignores the case of strategic fraud; as apparently happened in Florida. Due to the Electoral College, a small level of fraud in a few counties, in a key swing state, can make or break an election. In fact, this strikes me as one of the best reasons I have heard to do away with the winner-take-all system.

[russ_watters]

I read the entire article. It does not even slightly refute the implications. It gives an explanation of how it happened. So? It is always good to have a justification for nefarious activities. This quote was cut between pages: By looking for Hispanic surnames, the Herald-Tribune found about 1,400 possible Hispanics on the purge list, hidden under other race categories. That's the newspaper checking on the government's explanation and finding it plausible. So despite what appears to be a reasonable, substantiated explanation, you are assuming without evidence that some sort of conspiracy is at work? The paper doesn't make the accusation, though they quote a couple of Democrats making an implied accusation. And frankly, the Democrats are just as politically motivated on this issue as the Republicans (if you like, the word "nefarious" applies here as well): the Democrats want as many convicted felons voting as possible because as a group, they overwealmingly vote Democrat. By getting lists like this thrown out, they circumvent the law that says convicted felons are not eligible to vote.

No offense, Njorl, but are you ok? Having a bad week? You have, at times, been about the most logical poster in here (whether you agree with me on the politics or not, you have always had my respect), but lately, I'm not seeing it.

[phatmonky]

What about voter confidence? If a significant percentage of voting Americans no longer trust the system then the basis for our democratic process is lost. The perception of significant fraud may be just as significant as fraud itself.


Well, show me that significantly more people will volunteer to vote, and I will support measures across the board to inact that. However, voter apathy is time and again linked to their ignorance of politics and/or disdain of the candidates. It is not linked to voter confidence, and no where along hte line do I see that any of this points to the need for UN monitors.

[Artman]

How come this congresswoman is only bringing this to attention now?

Also, the people don't elect the President. The Electoral College elects the President.

[Njorl]

This quote was cut between pages: That's the newspaper checking on the government's explanation and finding it plausible. So despite what appears to be a reasonable, substantiated explanation, you are assuming without evidence that some sort of conspiracy is at work? The paper doesn't make the accusation, though they quote a couple of Democrats making an implied accusation. And frankly, the Democrats are just as politically motivated on this issue as the Republicans (if you like, the word "nefarious" applies here as well): the Democrats want as many convicted felons voting as possible because as a group, they overwealmingly vote Democrat. By getting lists like this thrown out, they circumvent the law that says convicted felons are not eligible to vote.

No offense, Njorl, but are you ok? Having a bad week? You have, at times, been about the most logical poster in here (whether you agree with me on the politics or not, you have always had my respect), but lately, I'm not seeing it.

Even with the 1400 additional names, that makes only 3% of the list hispanic when 17% of the states population is hispanic.

1. There is no doubt that the list would have disenfranchised people unjustly.

2. There is no doubt that the list would have allowed the vote to those who did not deserve it.

3. Any astute and honest political observer would concede that the unjustly disenfranchised group slightly, tend toward voting Democratic, and the group with unwarranted franchise tends to vote Republican very heavily.

4. The Republican caretakers of the list refused to allow the list to be copied and checked until they were forced by a court to do so.

5. The Republican authorities with the power to strike felons from the voter rolls unjustifiably denied the vote to more than 10,000 people in the 2000 presidential election.

6. The governer of the state is the brother of one of the Presidential candidates, the one who will benefit from the errors.

It is certainly not up to the standards of proof required in criminal or even civil law. We are not in court though. This is a matter of public opinion. As a matter of public opinion, I think it is more reasonable to assume ulterior motives than honest mistakes. Once in a while, honest mistakes work against you. That never seems to be the case for Republicans in Florida electoral mechanics.

I largely trust our electoral system. Where I distrust it is in matters where fraud is easy, effective and without repurcussion. All three of those requirements are in place in Florida.

Njorl

[kat]

Well, show me that significantly more people will volunteer to vote, and I will support measures across the board to inact that. However, voter apathy is time and again linked to their ignorance of politics and/or disdain of the candidates. It is not linked to voter confidence, and no where along hte line do I see that any of this points to the need for UN monitors. Of course, his whole proposal is based on the assumption that the U.N. monitors would bring voter confidence. I think he might be granting more faith to the U.N. then many americans do. In fact, I'd almost bet on an absolute rage at the idea coming from many quarters of the american public.

[JohnDubYa]

I must have missed it, but are Hispanic criminals likely to vote Republican?

[Njorl]

I must have missed it, but are Hispanic criminals likely to vote Republican?

Only in Florida. In Florida, the vast majority of Hispanics are Cuban. Cubans vote Republican at a 60%-80% rate.

Njorl

[JohnDubYa]

But what about Hispanic CRIMINALS? Those that have run afoul of the law and incarcerated vote conservatively?

[Njorl]

But what about Hispanic CRIMINALS? Those that have run afoul of the law and incarcerated vote conservatively?


Cubans vote Republican because they hate Castro. While the underlying logic of that is not necessarily sound, going to prison for sticking up a gas station isn't likely to change it.

Njorl

[russ_watters]

Even with the 1400 additional names, that makes only 3% of the list hispanic when 17% of the states population is hispanic. That was a cursory inspection by a newspaper. Who knows what an exhaustive audit would have turned up (yes, I would support that). 1....
2.... Certainly. Perfection is an impossibility.

3. Based on the assumption that the voting of convicted felons reflects that of the general population based on race. That's a mighty big assumption (JD's recent posts). How about based on income?

-The race distribution of those in prison does not reflect that of the general population.
-The income distribution of those in prison does not reflect that of the general population.
-Political affiliation based on income does not reflect political affiliation based on race.

I would tend to think convicted felons as a group would lean more to the left. Humor aside, the views of those in jail are more compatible with the Democrats than Republicans. I will freely admit though, that I don't know - and point out that neither do you. You are making an assumption without evidence. I don't consider it a reasonable assumption.

Also, by throwing out the entire list, Democrats are succeeding in skewing the votor pool more in the opposite direction. Are you equally upset about that or is it just errors that help the Republicans?

4. That is factually inccurate. The issue there was public release of the list. That is not related to whether or not the list was being worked on to improve it (it was). It also implies it was the Republicans who made and the list and thus made the errors (manipulations). They didn't. The list was compiled by a private company. At issue is whether or not the Republicans knew about and did anything about potential errors. Even if they knew about but did nothing about the errors, that does not rise to the level of criminal manipulation.

5. Is that a crime? An error? What accusation are you making? How does that compare, say, to the Democrat's attempt to prevent the counting of military absentee ballots?

6. Yes. What is your point? Is that an accusation of a conspiracy? Guilt by association? C'mon, Njorl, this isn't Reense. It is certainly not up to the standards of proof required in criminal or even civil law. We are not in court though. This is a matter of public opinion. As a matter of public opinion, I think it is more reasonable to assume ulterior motives than honest mistakes. Once in a while, honest mistakes work against you. That never seems to be the case for Republicans in Florida electoral mechanics. Well sure - thats how sample bias works. If a mistake worked against the Republicans, the Democrats would ignore it. Isn't that self evident?

By corollary, issues such as the absentee ballots aren't mentioned much by Republicans (except when Florida is brought up by Dems) because a Republican ultimately won. If the USSC had decided in favor of Gore, Dems would be utterly silent on the issue and an equal number of Republicans would be shouting "conspiracy!".

Go back and look at what Bush and Gore were arguing in their challenges of the election. Did either of them knowingly argue something that would have reduced their vote count? Cubans vote Republican because they hate Castro. While the underlying logic of that is not necessarily sound, going to prison for sticking up a gas station isn't likely to change it. I don't think sticking up a gas station is necessarily a felony, but setting that aside, I would think that once in prison, a Cuban might start seeing more in common between the US and Cuba. That certainly could affect political affiliation.

[JohnDubYa]

Cubans vote Republican because they hate Castro. While the underlying logic of that is not necessarily sound, going to prison for sticking up a gas station isn't likely to change it.

Except people don't just merely stick up gas stations. Those that engage in crime tend to follow certain patterns of thinking. And they also tend to be much younger than the average population. Furthermore, they have spent time behind bars.

So is there some evidence to back your claim that most Hispanics that have been incarcerated vote Republican?

[Njorl]

That was a cursory inspection by a newspaper. Who knows what an exhaustive audit would have turned up (yes, I would support that). Certainly. Perfection is an impossibility.

The omission of Hispanics was a systemic failure. The structur of the databases involved caused all self-identified Hispanics in the prison system to remain unpurged.

A further update about this - The company that provided the list warned Florida election officials that this would happen.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-720felonslist,0,5552605.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines
Private company DBT helped build the felons list for the 2000 election. DBT, which was later bought by ChoicePoint, discussed the difficulties involving Hispanic felons with experts in the secretary of state's office in late 1997 or early 1998, ChoicePoint spokesman Chuck Jones said Monday.

ChoicePoint and state officials analyzed the data together and realized that using race would create an inaccurate list because of the problems with Hispanic or Latinos, he said.

``We determined jointly that it was not reliable,'' Jones told the Sarasota Herald-Tribune for a story in Tuesday's editions.



3. Based on the assumption that the voting of convicted felons reflects that of the general population based on race. That's a mighty big assumption (JD's recent posts). How about based on income?

-The race distribution of those in prison does not reflect that of the general population.
-The income distribution of those in prison does not reflect that of the general population.
-Political affiliation based on income does not reflect political affiliation based on race.

I would tend to think convicted felons as a group would lean more to the left. Humor aside, the views of those in jail are more compatible with the Democrats than Republicans. I will freely admit though, that I don't know - and point out that neither do you. You are making an assumption without evidence. I don't consider it a reasonable assumption.

The poor tend to vote Democrat. Poor Cubans do not. I see no reason for general trends in the voting haits of Cubans in presidential elections to depend upon prison history.


Also, by throwing out the entire list, Democrats are succeeding in skewing the votor pool more in the opposite direction. Are you equally upset about that or is it just errors that help the Republicans?

If the Republicans had heeded the words of the people who told them the list would be flawed, there would have been time to fix it. If the Republicans had not stonewalled against the checking of the list there would have been time to fix it. They are suffering from their own attempts at fraud. Tough luck.


4. That is factually inccurate.

No, it is accurate.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/01/florida.elections/
"(CNN) -- A state court judge in Florida ordered Thursday that the board of elections immediately release a list of nearly 50,000 suspected felons to CNN and other news organizations that last month sued the state for access to copies of the list.



The issue there was public release of the list. That is not related to whether or not the list was being worked on to improve it (it was). It also implies it was the Republicans who made and the list and thus made the errors (manipulations). They didn't. The list was compiled by a private company.
The Republican election commissioners hired contractors to prepare the list. The contractor warned of the flaws. That makes the commissioners responsible.

I have read stories about work being done to fix the list after the word got out about the flaw, but not before.



At issue is whether or not the Republicans knew about and did anything about potential errors. Even if they knew about but did nothing about the errors, that does not rise to the level of criminal manipulation.

Really? It probably should.


5. Is that a crime? An error? What accusation are you making?

It is an indication of past behavior. The Republican election commissioners demonstrated a lack of competence and a need for public oversight. They refused it until compelled by court order.

How does that compare, say, to the Democrat's attempt to prevent the counting of military absentee ballots?

You mean the ballots that were technically unacceptable due to processing errors? That might have given Gore the presidency? The ones Gore insisted that they NOT be challenged? If the Democrats had challenged them, they would have been thrown out.


6. Yes. What is your point? Is that an accusation of a conspiracy? Guilt by association? C'mon, Njorl, this isn't Reense.

There are conspiracies. I'm sure you could check the FBI crime statistics to see how many convictions for conspiracy there are every year. There are also many thousands of crimes committed by people in positions of trust abusing their power every year. The key to an effective conspiracy is keeping the numbers down. How many FLorida election commissioners are there? I'm not saying they should be put in prison. I'm saying that attempted manipulation of the election a very reasonable assessment of the situation. Election commissioners are chosen for their party loyalty, not their manifest virtue.



Well sure - thats how sample bias works. If a mistake worked against the Republicans, the Democrats would ignore it. Isn't that self evident?

Actually, I have you to thank for the counter example of this - the absentee military ballots that Gore insisted be counted.


By corollary, issues such as the absentee ballots aren't mentioned much by Republicans (except when Florida is brought up by Dems) because a Republican ultimately won. If the USSC had decided in favor of Gore, Dems would be utterly silent on the issue and an equal number of Republicans would be shouting "conspiracy!".

Except that the Democrats didn't challenge those ballots.


Go back and look at what Bush and Gore were arguing in their challenges of the election. Did either of them knowingly argue something that would have reduced their vote count?

I don't think sticking up a gas station is necessarily a felony, but setting that aside, I would think that once in prison, a Cuban might start seeing more in common between the US and Cuba. That certainly could affect political affiliation.

I don't think so.

Njorl

PS - What the heck is Reense?

[Adam]

Let's see...

1) Bush and his associates gained power by completely fudging the last election: http://www.lumpen.com/coup2k/

2) Since then, Bush's administration has installed new voting methods.

3) The Bush-installed computer voting methods leave no paper-trail, no evidence.

Yeah, I expect the election to be a complete fraud.

[loseyourname]

If Kerry is elected, will you consider that a product of fraud?

[Artman]

Okay, I'm going to ask again. If this whole thing wasn't politcally motivated, why hasn't this congresswoman been screaming about this for 3.5 years?

Why did she wait for election year to make a big deal about this?

And again, the president is not elected by the people, he is elected by the Electoral College. They can vote for whoever they want to. They usually don't, but they can. If they thought that their state wanted Gore, they could have voted for him.

[plover]

Go back and look at what Bush and Gore were arguing in their challenges of the election. Did either of them knowingly argue something that would have reduced their vote count?
More to the point would be something like Jacobs v. Seminole County Canvassing Board concerning the Republican voter registrar who invited a Republican party official to the Seminole County registrar's office to add missing id numbers to Republican requests for absentee ballots. Despite Republican attempts to have the judge (a Democrat) removed from the case for partisan bias, and despite the "convincing proof that this invitation was unlawful and a lopsided partisan tampering with the electoral process, Judge [Nikki] Clark nonetheless found that disqualifying hundreds of absentee ballots would not be a remedy for the statutory violation" (Raskin, Overruling Democracy, p.23; see also 773 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 2000)).

One suspects that the Supreme Court could have ruled in such a way that:
The majority did not appear to be discounting "the will of the people" by declaring a recount of ballots "irreparable harm" to Bush.
The majority did not appear to be casting aside their usual principles of federalism by ruling on a case of Florida state law that properly belonged to the Florida Supreme Court (i.e. determining recount standards).
The decision did not effectively pre-empt powers Constitutionally reserved for Congress of deciding on the legitimacy of Electoral College votes.
A large number of Constitutional scholars would not be decrying Bush v. Gore as the most badly argued Supreme court decision in U.S. history.

Justice Scalia defended the decision thus: "The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election."

As far as I can tell, this statement is predicated on the issue of damaging Bush's claim to have won, even though it is precisely that claim that is disputed (not to mention that the counting of votes is the generally accepted method of deciding electoral claims...) And in my opinion, more of "a cloud" was cast on the legitimacy of the election by the Supreme Court than by any of Bush's legal efforts in his own interest.

(And however one wants to define "questionable legality" in this situation (and it is a question that is almost certainly an issue of Florida law not Federal), AFAICT the actual decision in Bush v. Gore explicitly does not depend on it.)

Whatever shenanigans may be attributable to either or both parties, I doubt that the claim that the election was "stolen" really makes sense (precisely because it was a statistical tie). The legitimacy of the result, however, has a big question mark over it because the issue was forced by a Supreme Court that gave the impression of being motivated (whether conciously or unconciously) by unreflective partisanship rather than the integrity of the U.S. electoral process.

I can certainly imagine circumstances under which I could accept that Bush became president legitimately, but as it stands I can not. In those circumstances, I don't expect I'd like or respect him any more than I do now, but I wouldn't dispute his right to hold the office.

[Robert Zaleski]

Only in Florida. In Florida, the vast majority of Hispanics are Cuban. Cubans vote Republican at a 60%-80% rate.

Njorl
The Revised 2000 census for Florida shows the following figures (rounded) for the hispanic population:

Cuban population 900,000
New Latinos (mostly of South America origin) 850,000
Puerto Ricans 500,000
Mexicans 400,000
Total 2,650,000
900,000/2,650,000=34% Cuban

[russ_watters]

No, it is accurate.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/01/florida.elections/
"(CNN) -- A state court judge in Florida ordered Thursday that the board of elections immediately release a list of nearly 50,000 suspected felons to CNN and other news organizations that last month sued the state for access to copies of the list. Compare what you said right there with this: 4. The Republican caretakers of the list refused to allow the list to be copied and checked until they were forced by a court to do so. Leaving out 'by CNN' in the initial post changes the whole meaning. It makes it sound like no effort was ever made to check the list. That is wrong. Actually, I have you to thank for the counter example of this - the absentee military ballots that Gore insisted be counted. BOGGLE :confused: :confused: Do you want to check on that again?You mean the ballots that were technically unacceptable due to processing errors? That might have given Gore the presidency? The ones Gore insisted that they NOT be challenged? If the Democrats had challenged them, they would have been thrown out. Are you contradicting yourself? You seem confused.

Gore did challenge military absentee ballots in an effort to have them thrown out. Why? Because the military overwealmingly votes Republican.

Maybe this Chronology (http://covenantnews.com/election.htm) will help refresh your memory. See November 20th, 21st. Besides just the court challenge, the Democrats went after the counters. When vote counters arrived Friday in heavily Republican Duval County, five lawyers from the Al Gore camp stood poised to contest virtually every military ballot waiting to be opened. During a 19-hour process that ended Saturday at 4:30 a.m., the Gore team challenged the authenticity of signatures, dates and addresses. They got one Navy lieutenant's ballot thrown out. The officer wrote on the envelope he could not get a postmark on his ship before sending it to Florida. "The big story here is this was a systematic, heavy-handed effort by the Democrats to eliminate absentee military ballots," said Jim Post, a Republican attorney who fought the Gore challenges. The painfully slow manual recount of Florida ballot papers took its most acrimonious turn yesterday when Republicans accused the Gore campaign of deliberately excluding servicemen's postal votes to fix the election. Governor George W Bush comfortably won the overseas absentee vote by 1,380 votes to Vice-President Al Gore's 750 but, after vigorous challenges by Gore canvassers, 1,527 of the postal ballots, many of them from soldiers and sailors on active service, were rejected.
Perhaps you are confused by the actions of the Florida Attorney General who opposed Gore's challenge of the absentee ballots? In any case, Democrats, on behalf of Gore, sued and lost in their effort to get military absentee ballots thrown out.

Further, Gore and the Democrats, while trumpeting 'every vote should count' challenged the election process only in those counties where more votes would mean more votes for Gore. He didn't, for example, call for a state-wide recount, because it would have meant counting more votes in counties that voted for Bush. Every vote should count - but only if they are votes for Gore.
PS - What the heck is Reense? The most infamous conspiracy theory website (misspelled with an extra e).

[Ivan Seeking]

If anything, you have blindly accepted the word of a loon. What's worse?

I haven't drawn any conclusions regarding this particular example. Funny that you would, considering the implications.

If I was sure that Bush Sr had some of his operatives scare Perot out of the race this thread would read quite differently. It is naive to ignore the claim entirely.

[Ivan Seeking]

From the first post in this thread:

Very late edit: Please make that second option "significant election fraud"; meaning enough to affect the outcome of the election. Any votes already made in error should be clarified and I will post the correction here. I sure don't want to start any polling fraud conspiracy theories! :rofl:

[ray b]

The Revised 2000 census for Florida shows the following figures (rounded) for the hispanic population:

Cuban population 900,000
New Latinos (mostly of South America origin) 850,000
Puerto Ricans 500,000
Mexicans 400,000
Total 2,650,000
900,000/2,650,000=34% Cuban

Cuban fast tracked for citizenship and many who are not yet citizens DO VOTE
New Latinos maybe low# BUT most are illegal or notyet citizens and DONOT VOTE
Puerto Ricans 500,000 high # maybe includes people who claim to Puerto Ricans falsely to avoid INS
Mexicans 400,000 mostly migrant labor noncitizen and donot vote

most latins running for office here are both cuban and republican
their crooks are far more likely to inguage in white collar crime
of a republican nature like medicare fraud, then to knock over a gas station.
remember allmost all of the cuban upper classes came here and very few from lower class a natural republican base group to start with, that events like the bay of pigs only reinforced

[loseyourname]

Oh come now, Ray. I'd like to see numbers showing that even though Cubans represent only 34% of the Hispanic population of Florida, they in fact represent almost all of the convicted and released felons. If that's true, then maybe Njorl can begin to build a case.

[JohnDubYa]

Heh. The Florida voting scandal reminds me of the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon where they are playing with the Ouiji board.

"Oh Great Ouiji Board, which of us is the smartest?"

"Quit pushing, the Ouji board is clearly trying to move to the letter 'C'!"

"No, the board is clearly trying to move to the letter 'H'!"

[amp]

It is common knowledge know that the voting in Florida was rigged. Multiple ballots(votes) for Bush by the same people, Military ballots that were counted with postmarks after the deadline, Thugs who prevented many blacks from voting. It goes on ... The election official in charge switched from Rep. to Dem. was involved in Florida's use of the 'Butterfly' ballot then after the election switched back to Rep. again.

[Njorl]

The Revised 2000 census for Florida shows the following figures (rounded) for the hispanic population:

Cuban population 900,000
New Latinos (mostly of South America origin) 850,000
Puerto Ricans 500,000
Mexicans 400,000
Total 2,650,000
900,000/2,650,000=34% Cuban

Thank you. I find this relevant. I no longer believe that the list was an intentional attempt at manipulating the vote. I no longer see a way that Republicans could expect to benefit from this.

While Cubans are more likely to be citizens than Mexicans or Central Americans, they are less likely to be citizens than Puero Ricans.

My original thinking was there should be about 8000 Hispanics on the list who were not, 5000 of them Cuban, 2500 would vote, producing about 500 extra Republican votes state wide. That is a number that is empirically worth risk-free fraud.

As it is, if we assume 8000 Hispanics missing from the list, only about 2700 will be Cuban, about 1350 will vote, producing about 270 unwarranted surplus Republican votes. However, the other Hispanics who were wrongfully allowed to vote would probably tend to vote Democratic, though not as uniformly. The result would tend to be a wash statistically.

I no longer believe they were being nefarious.

They were just being incompetent.

Njorl

[russ_watters]

I missed this before and its a good post: More to the point would be something like Jacobs v. Seminole County Canvassing Board concerning the Republican voter registrar who invited a Republican party official to the Seminole County registrar's office to add missing id numbers to Republican requests for absentee ballots. Something I didn't touch on before was the courts' influence. Courts aren't a voting watchdog group and aren't capable of being one. One obvious flaw is that they only rule on cases they see. That means they don't have the power to investigate and find problems. If somone argues for a recount in one county, for example, they can't take it upon themselves to order a full-state recount.

In this specific case, being former military, I want as many military absentee ballots counted as possible. Military should be given the benefit of the doubt and get a little help with the paperwork if necessary. But clearly doing it for one party and not the other is wrong. In this case, it would seem the judge tried to go outside her scope of power and look at "the big picture," when her job description says she must rule on the case she is presented with.Whatever shenanigans may be attributable to either or both parties, I doubt that the claim that the election was "stolen" really makes sense (precisely because it was a statistical tie). The legitimacy of the result, however, has a big question mark over it because the issue was forced by a Supreme Court that gave the impression of being motivated (whether conciously or unconciously) by unreflective partisanship rather than the integrity of the U.S. electoral process. I would certainly agree that Bush won the election in the courtroom, not the voting booth (no one won in the voting booth), but I don't see a remedy for that in that election. Clearly though, the USSC should not be deciding elections. The rules/methods need to be changed to prevent that in the future.

[russ_watters]

I no longer believe that the list was an intentional attempt at manipulating the vote. I no longer see a way that Republicans could expect to benefit from this...

I no longer believe they were being nefarious.

They were just being incompetent. Fair enough, but that is, of course, a fine line. In fact, politicians have a knack for being both corrupt and incompetent simultaneously... :wink:

[Njorl]

The person who demanded that 1400 military absentee ballots be thrown out.

"With regard to the status of overseas absentee ballots, they must have been executed as of last Tuesday. They must bear a
foreign postmark as provide[d] in Section 101.62(7), and they must be received by the supervisors of elections by midnight Friday. They are not required, however, to be postmarked on or prior to last Tuesday."

-Katherine Harris, Florida Secretary of State, Republican

[Dayle Record]

I think there was fraud in the last election, and I fear that this next election won't happen. There have been key statements, from the current administration that indicate that. One statement being that if there were terrorism attendant to the election, the election would be postponed. Then the statement by Tommy Franks, that if a nuclear weapon detonated in the US, we would scrap the Constitution and go with a military form of government. There are currents now, I have never seen before that this government is obsolete, and needs to be scrapped. The obsolescence has to do with failure to follow a rightwing sort of agenda. Bush said on television that he would not lose this election, but the way he said it, sounded like fait accompli.

[amp]

Dayle, ... do you mean this sort of way - "IF I CAN'T HAVE IT NOONE CAN!!! MU WHO ha HA hA Ha HA hhaaa" Oh, sorry just daydreaming, addressing the comment a few posts ago, "Would it be fraud if Kerry won?" Simple answer ...No. Kerry isn't the one who's supporters(cronies) owns the company that makes the easy to tamper with electonic voting machines!! Duh.

[JohnDubYa]

I haven't drawn any conclusions regarding this particular example. Funny that you would, considering the implications.

Claims are worthless in the absence of credibility. Perot has simply made too many bizarre comments over his career.

There are people out there that think Bill Clinton murdered some of his opponents. Without any evidence to support those claims, what good are they?

[JohnDubYa]

I think there was fraud in the last election, and I fear that this next election won't happen. There have been key statements, from the current administration that indicate that. One statement being that if there were terrorism attendant to the election, the election would be postponed.

This has been debated in another thread. I fail to see how this would bring the end to democracy.

Then the statement by Tommy Franks, that if a nuclear weapon detonated in the US, we would scrap the Constitution and go with a military form of government.

Link? I want to see his actual quote.

There are currents now, I have never seen before that this government is obsolete, and needs to be scrapped. The obsolescence has to do with failure to follow a rightwing sort of agenda.[quote]

Can you back up any of this with real statements?

[quote] Bush said on television that he would not lose this election, but the way he said it, sounded like fait accompli.

I think you are letting your hatred of Bush get the best of you. (Bill Clinton had the same effect on conservatives.)

[russ_watters]

I think there was fraud in the last election, and I fear that this next election won't happen. There have been key statements, from the current administration that indicate that. One statement being that if there were terrorism attendant to the election, the election would be postponed. Then the statement by Tommy Franks, that if a nuclear weapon detonated in the US, we would scrap the Constitution and go with a military form of government. There are currents now, I have never seen before that this government is obsolete, and needs to be scrapped. The obsolescence has to do with failure to follow a rightwing sort of agenda. Bush said on television that he would not lose this election, but the way he said it, sounded like fait accompli. This is very similar to a common Clinton conspiracy theory: Clinton passed a law re-organizing or updating FEMA. The conspiracy theory was that that was in preparation for siezing dictatorial power at the turn of the milenium after a manufactured Y2K bug.

More entertaining than yours, but just as absurd. The person who demanded that 1400 military absentee ballots be thrown out....

-Katherine Harris, Florida Secretary of State, Republican That's fine, Njorl, there were notable dissenters on both sides (Clinton's SecDef was one who was opposed to the attempt to have them thrown out): but those dissenters didn't take any actions.

[amp]

Gore did finally, in his concern for the nation concede to Bush.

[Ivan Seeking]

ho di doe di doe, ho di doe, ho. :biggrin: