News 2000 Election Stolen

Was the 2000 Presidential election stolen?

  • Total voters
russ_watters said:
.... your chosen source has put a lot of effort into misleading you.

...Praytell.... *What* is my "chosen source?"
russ_watters said:
Interesting - I've read BBV's account of that (I assume that's what you are referring to) and it just plain doesn't make any sense. A single memory card from a single machine recorded negative 16,000 votes for Gore. They seem to be implying that those negative votes remained in Gore's tally (reducing Gore's total by 16,000), when the facts that they post say otherwise - and if they had been retained, that'd be a pretty obvious red flag that a lot of people missed, wouldn't it? Since the precinct only had a total of 600 votors, assuming all were lost and all were for Gore, that's a max of 600. (edit: in fact, there were 216 votes cast, and all were correctly counted by the end of the night)
All the reputable sites I've found (news sites, Wik, etc) say that it was an obvious error at the time and was quickly corrected. In fact, they say that error was responsible for the early calls by all the major networks that Bush took Florida and correcting the error is why those calls were retracted." [Broken] is the story as told by a highly left-biased source, but which still affirms what I have said.
It's stories like this that make BBV more of a conspiracy theory site than simply a partisan rhetoric-fest, which is what some people treat them as.
Call it condescending if you want, but again I must remind you that you stated that you wish to approach politics scientifically.
Edit: it appears from your description of the event that you are confused about what actually happened. That's understandable, since your chosen source has put a lot of effort into misleading you. Does that change your opinion on the subject? It should. Heck, if you really mean it when you say you want to be scientific about it, this should cause you discard BBV as a reliable source and call into question all of the opinions you've based on what they've told you.
I'm spending a little more time on this. It looks like the 600 number comes from a single precinct in the county, and I see that you stated that to be the case. It also looks like one possibility still being discussed by many including company execs, is that a second memory card illegally went into the machine to alter the vote. This is reminiscent of the 4000 votes that went to Bush in Ohio in a precinct that had only a few hundred voters.

It looks like this glaring error was caught and corrected .... but doesn't it seem to you that there are some serious vulnerabilities here? If we have two cases where thousands of votes were thrown to Bush, and in the first even the company execs say it might be due to a second card being introduced and caught only because the error was so huge, then who's to say that there weren't dozens of cases that were carried out more discreetly (and by someone who knew not to alter a result by 16,000 votes)?

What we know from the (Diebold) memos can be summarised as follows:

- Two memory cards were uploaded from Volusia Couny's precinct 216, the second one was loaded sometime close to 2am in the morning. It automatically replaced the first card's results and reduced Gore's total by 16,022 votes and added several thousand votes to Bush plus a variety of minor candidates;
- Both memory cards loaded into the system clean and without errors, indicating (contrary to the official line) that they were not faulty;
- After the error was noticed the original card was reloaded and the mistake was rectified;
- The error was introduced in such a way that the total number of votes remained unchanged (again something that could not happen by chance.);
- According to the technical boffins, the chance of the memory card being corrupted and still passing the checksum error test are less than 60,000 to 1;
- The technical managers at Diebold Election Systems considered it a reasonable possibility that the second card was part of deliberate conspiracy to rig the election results.
Last edited by a moderator:


Bush cheated. It is what he does.
Impeach the treasonous liar


Gold Member
russ_watters said:
:confused: :confused: I'm liking these results just fine. I wanted to know if people think Bush got into office in 2001 due to illegal activity by him (or on his behalf) and I'm getting answers to that. What results do you think I'd prefer? :confused: :confused:
One thing that would probably be interesting is repeating the poll on, say, a yearly basis and seeing how the results change...
You have taken the position that fraud cannot be proven, so seemed your position has been that therefore it did not happen. But if not, fair enough.

russ_watters said:
Could you give an example?
Some things, such as the suppression of Wilson’s findings in regard to uranium yellowcake in Niger, etc., are being addressed with other legal processes. Other things were perpetrated by supporters, such as endorsement from the pulpit, which the IRS has been investigating. Still I hold Bush responsible for fueling this with his complete disregard for the constitution and separation of church and state. The conflict of interest in Florida with Jeb as Governor should have been dealt with in some way. And if anyone believes these things did not make a difference in such a close race, they are delusional.

There were many things that helped Bush that are general election reform issues. I'll start a list that others can add to if they wish:

1) Gerrymandering
2) Propositions for laws that already exist - to ban gay marriage in states where it is already illegal per state statutes.
3) The need for consistent (national) voting procedures

Just to name a few…
Last edited:

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads