What level of fraud occurred in the 2004 election?

  • News
  • Thread starter russ_watters
  • Start date
In summary: I'm not sure it's possible. In summary, John Conyers believes that there may not have been an active conspiracy to suppress the vote and steal the election, but all those problems in Ohio - the long lines in Democratic precincts, the voting machines that may have switched votes, the suspicious actions of a voting-machine company representative, the trumped-up concerns about terrorism in Warren County, the Republican-friendly rulings by the state election official who also happened to chair the Bush-Cheney campaign - well, those things didn't all happen by accident, either. He thinks that Bush's supporters in Ohio may have worked to suppress the vote based on cues rather than orders from

What Level of Fraud Occurred in the 2004 Election

  • A big conspiracy won the election for Bush.

    Votes: 6 42.9%
  • A big conspiracy existed for Bush, but he won the election with or without it.

    Votes: 2 14.3%
  • A big conspiracy happened for Kerry, but it failed.

    Votes: 2 14.3%
  • A lot of small-time fraud occurred, but it didn't flip the election.

    Votes: 7 50.0%
  • A lot of small-time fraud occurred and it did flip the election.

    Votes: 4 28.6%

  • Total voters
    14
  • #1
russ_watters
Mentor
23,125
10,300
In an attempt to clarify previous polls, I'd like to know what level of fraud people think occurred in the election. Since not all of the options are mutually exclusive, you can pick more than 1.

1. Bush or someone working on his behalf (with or without his knowledge) stole the election for Bush in a large conspiracy*.
2. Bush or someone working on his behalf (with or without his knowledge) attempted to steal the election for Bush in a large conspiracy*. They didn't have much of an effect, and Bush would have won with or without their efforts.
3. Kerry or someone working on his behalf (with or without his knowledge) attempted to steal the election for Kerry in a large conspiracy*. They didn't succeed.
4. A large number of people attempted to illegally influence the outcome of the election on the small scale** and their combined efforts turned the election to Bush.
5. A large number of people attempted to illegally influence the outcome of the election on the small scale** and their combined efforts turned the election to Bush.

*"A large conspiracy" is a single effort that had a major effect (thousands to millions of votes). An example would be pre-programming all of the voting machines to give Bush 10% more votes than he should have gotten.
**"On the small scale" is a large number of individuals doing things that individually had very little effect (dozens to hundreds of votes). This would be things like an election official purposely blocking a person from voting (oops, we lost your votor registration..).

edit: I realize some people might be uncomfortable with the phrase "large number of people" for options 4 and 5. If you are and you vote one of those options, by all means, specify what you consider to be "large".
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I may vote later, I feel like I could check off a lot of those boxes ---- In the meantime, here's my take on it. This is from an interview with John Conyers in December? of last year.

There may not have been an active conspiracy to suppress the vote and steal the election, but all those problems in Ohio - the long lines in Democratic precincts, the voting machines that may have switched votes, the suspicious actions of a voting-machine company representative, the trumped-up concerns about terrorism in Warren County, the Republican-friendly rulings by the state election official who also happened to chair the Bush-Cheney campaign - well, those things didn't all happen by accident, either.

"You know, orchestrated attempts don't always require a conspiracy," Conyers told Salon on Monday. Conyers said that Bush's supporters in Ohio may have worked to suppress the vote based on cues rather than orders from party officials. "People get the drift from other elections and the way [campaign leaders] talk about how they're going to win the election."

Conyers isn't looking to overturn the election, and he won't say that the Republicans stole it; coming from a member of Congress, such an allegation would be "reckless," he said. But neither is he willing to put the election of 2004 behind him yet. This is the second presidential election in a row in which Republicans have succeeded in suppressing the vote, Conyers said, and he wants to ensure that the system is changed so that it won't happen again. He'll continue his investigation, he'll join the Rev. Jesse Jackson in a protest rally in Ohio on Jan. 3, and when the new Congress meets in January he'll push for further investigation and reform.

In that sense, I lean towards the latter choices, but I don't rule out the others -

http://peaceandjustice.org/article.php?story=20041221135434544&mode=print0 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
John Conyers said:
"You know, orchestrated attempts don't always require a conspiracy"
Jeez, that's a doozy:

"conspiracy: Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action."

Sorry John, if 2 people take part in the same crime, that's a conspiracy. Gawd, I love politicians. :rolleyes:

It may be that he meant it didn't require a conspiracy going all the way up to Bush, but if two people took part in it, it was a conspiracy.
 
  • #4
russ_watters said:
Jeez, that's a doozy:

"conspiracy: Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action."

Sorry John, if 2 people take part in the same crime, that's a conspiracy. Gawd, I love politicians. :rolleyes:

It may be that he meant it didn't require a conspiracy going all the way up to Bush, but if two people took part in it, it was a conspiracy.


THen why are your options in the poll divided into "big time conspiracy" (headed intentionally, by a single individual), and "small time fraud?"

Gawd I love conservatives. :rolleyes:

IOW: You can try to *listen* to what is being said, instead of constantly ridiculing the other side and telling them why they're wrong. You are interested in working for common understanding, aren't you? Do you *at all* recognize that what Conyers said, and what others have said, is *patently different* than the scenarios you keep trying to debunk?
 
  • #5
I think by definition conservatives are rather close minded, and will seek to justify a belief by any number of self enforcing lies, rather than look at the simple facts.

A small example: Congress tried to block Conyer's (and other's) attempts at an inquiry regarding the Downing Street memo. Conservatives took this as the right thing to do, citing that an inquiry was a waste of time and would slow down the governmental process etc. They still seek to justify the countless lies and misinformation spewn out by the administration by any means necessary, rather than look at the simple facts; outlined clearly in fact by the memo.

They still seek to vilify anyone who would attack Judith Miller. Here's an interesting fact:

"NEW YORK The board of The American Society of Journalists and Authors (ASJA) has voted unanimously to not endorse an earlier decision to give a Conscience in Media award to jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller, E&P has learned.

The group's First Amendment committee had narrowly voted to give Miller the prize for her dedication to protecting sources, but the full board has now voted to not accept that decision, based on its opinion that her entire career, and even her current actions in the Plame/CIA leak case, cast doubt on her credentials for this award. "

From: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001008093 [Broken]

I wonder why they didn't give her the award? Must be because they are FILTHY PINK SHIRT LIBERALS.

Conservatives in my opinion are not very good Critical Thinkers, or otherwise would rather believe one set of lies that corresponds to their belief system rather than look at the facts (I think there is a word for this but I can't remember it... something like Cognitive Dissonance but I know that's not it).

Why else would they go to such lengths to vilify the "theory" of evolution? (The word "theory" in itself means a well outlined hypothesis supported by many many facts and observations - many would simply gloss over that.)

Why else would conservatives deny any evidence of pollution or global warming? Of erosion and deforestation?

Why else would conservatives hold the belief that since THEY managed to work hard and go through higher education to get a well paying job, why can't others do it? They fail to realize many never get the opportunity to do so.

Why else would conservatives find no fault in a one party system? They fail to understand the very basic principles of the Democracy they so cherish.

Conservatives in general make me sick.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
russ_watters said:
Sorry John, if 2 people take part in the same crime, that's a conspiracy. Gawd, I love politicians. :rolleyes:
Actually, no. If 2 people plan to commit the same crime together, it's a conspiracy. If 2 people just show up and commit the same crime it's not a conspiracy.

Sorry to nitpick
 
  • #7
russ_watters said:
In an attempt to clarify previous polls, I'd like to know what level of fraud people think occurred in the election. Since not all of the options are mutually exclusive, you can pick more than 1.

1. Bush or someone working on his behalf (with or without his knowledge) stole the election for Bush in a large conspiracy*.
2. Bush or someone working on his behalf (with or without his knowledge) attempted to steal the election for Bush in a large conspiracy*. They didn't have much of an effect, and Bush would have won with or without their efforts.
3. Kerry or someone working on his behalf (with or without his knowledge) attempted to steal the election for Kerry in a large conspiracy*. They didn't succeed.
4. A large number of people attempted to illegally influence the outcome of the election on the small scale** and their combined efforts turned the election to Bush.
5. A large number of people attempted to illegally influence the outcome of the election on the small scale** and their combined efforts turned the election to Bush.

*"A large conspiracy" is a single effort that had a major effect (thousands to millions of votes). An example would be pre-programming all of the voting machines to give Bush 10% more votes than he should have gotten.
**"On the small scale" is a large number of individuals doing things that individually had very little effect (dozens to hundreds of votes). This would be things like an election official purposely blocking a person from voting (oops, we lost your votor registration..).

edit: I realize some people might be uncomfortable with the phrase "large number of people" for options 4 and 5. If you are and you vote one of those options, by all means, specify what you consider to be "large".

You should be a hack with all these seriously loaded and closed questions you ask...
 
  • #8
MaxS said:
Conservatives in my opinion are not very good Critical Thinkers, or otherwise would rather believe one set of lies that corresponds to their belief system rather than look at the facts (I think there is a word for this but I can't remember it... something like Cognitive Dissonance but I know that's not it).

Why else would they go to such lengths to vilify the "theory" of evolution? (The word "theory" in itself means a well outlined hypothesis supported by many many facts and observations - many would simply gloss over that.)

Why else would conservatives deny any evidence of pollution or global warming? Of erosion and deforestation?

Why else would conservatives hold the belief that since THEY managed to work hard and go through higher education to get a well paying job, why can't others do it? They fail to realize many never get the opportunity to do so.

Why else would conservatives find no fault in a one party system? They fail to understand the very basic principles of the Democracy they so cherish.

Conservatives in general make me sick.

Wow, and they call conservatives ignorant :rolleyes:

Think you've been attending too many Bush-effige burnings by cocaine addicts.
 
  • #9
Anttech said:
You should be a hack with all these seriously loaded and closed questions you ask...

Well since many people in the US, many on this board, think there was such an obvious and blatant fraud, getting the answers to those questions shouldn't be that hard!

Unless of course there just simple crybabies who only say what they are told to say and don't care to find reasonable information about it.
 
  • #10
I liked the options here better. Thank you.
 
  • #11
pattylou said:
THen why are your options in the poll divided into "big time conspiracy" (headed intentionally, by a single individual), and "small time fraud?"

Gawd I love conservatives. :rolleyes:

IOW: You can try to *listen* to what is being said, instead of constantly ridiculing the other side and telling them why they're wrong. You are interested in working for common understanding, aren't you? Do you *at all* recognize that what Conyers said, and what others have said, is *patently different* than the scenarios you keep trying to debunk?

Actually patty, even you should be able to realize the poll is looking for actual names. Everyone loves throwing out stats and figures and opinions with the utmost confidence that they are right, but no one can seem to bring up actual names.
 
  • #12
Pengwuino said:
Well since many people in the US, many on this board, think there was such an obvious and blatant fraud, getting the answers to those questions shouldn't be that hard!
When are you going to stop with the 24 inch wide roller you use and start proposing answers or at least identifying problems in the system and not imagining people imagining conspiracies?

Pengwuino said:
Unless of course there just simple crybabies who only say what they are told to say and don't care to find reasonable information about it.
When are you going to stop with the ad hominem and post something of value?
 
  • #13
The Smoking Man said:
When are you going to stop with the 24 inch wide roller you use and start proposing answers or at least identifying problems in the system and not imagining people imagining conspiracies?

What answers are required? Can't prove a negative. These nuts need to propose some actual factual information to support their claims that someONE obviously tried to rig the election. We have some glitches and some peoples opinions. The glitches are glitches, what more can be said. But these opinions that someone was actively out to steal the election NEED clarification. Please stop appologizing for the people on this forum who refuse to stick up for their accusations.
 
  • #14
Pengwuino said:
What answers are required? Can't prove a negative. These nuts need to propose some actual factual information to support their claims that someONE obviously tried to rig the election. We have some glitches and some peoples opinions. The glitches are glitches, what more can be said. But these opinions that someone was actively out to steal the election NEED clarification. Please stop appologizing for the people on this forum who refuse to stick up for their accusations.
Heck, I sent you to the IDG website and the data they collected on the 59 gliches in the system at the same time reporting evidence of those gliches after the election.

You merely pointed out I was 'biased' because my article included no data from the Kerry errors.

It was in fact YOU in your own silly twisted litle way (Trying to prove my bias) THAT PROVED THE NEGATIVE by supplying information of the Kerry errors.

I still discount this because it was a disengenuous submission merely supplied to prove I had some for of 'bias' in this discussion and not to contribute evidence of machine problems and vulnerabilities.

It's YOU who is being so damned PIG headed and not reading what is written while reading your own interpretations of conspiracies.

I don't know if this thing is public or not but if it is, you will note I have not voted in any of these silly little polls.

I have merely commented on procedure and systems flaws.

You then pop into inflame the posters and fail to address the problems of gliches which MAY have had a factor in altering votes and having maybe even your vote voided.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
pattylou said:
THen why are your options in the poll divided into "big time conspiracy" (headed intentionally, by a single individual), and "small time fraud?"

Gawd I love conservatives. :rolleyes:
Because by "small time fraud", I really do mean individuals working alone. Don't read into it something I didn't say. Pattylou, what you are think you see in me, you really should look for in your mirror.
IOW: You can try to *listen* to what is being said, instead of constantly ridiculing the other side and telling them why they're wrong. You are interested in working for common understanding, aren't you? Do you *at all* recognize that what Conyers said, and what others have said, is *patently different* than the scenarios you keep trying to debunk?
Pattylou, I already responded to the Conyers memo and you didn't address my response(edit: actually, there wasn't much to address, since I didn't disagree with the Coners memo - its just that there wasn't much in it relevant to the discussion). Again, what you are think you see in me is actually in your mirror.

And I do not ridicule people. If you can provide a specific example of me ridiculing you, I'll apologize, but I think you are seeing a debate and misinterpreting it as ridicule.

Pattylou, I disagree with you. That means I'm going to argue my point, argue against your point, and look for you to argue against my arguments. That's the point of a debate. You seem to be taking this personally - there isn't anything personal about this: since I know nothing at all about you, its pretty tough to make it personal.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
Not taking it personally, and not looking for an 'argument.' I don't think this is a "debate" topic. I certainly don't think arguing should be a goal for something as important as to whether America is a Democracy! (Or a republic. You know what I mean.)

I think this is an *important* topic that needs to be addressed. That means discussed. That means some social lubrication from time to time.

Your approach of polarising the discussions *hurts* the process - and the only thing I can figure is that since you want this to be "debate" style, you have no intention of agreeing with the "other side."

I know I'm doing the same thing. :tongue: You're bringing it out in me!

Re: ridiculing people: You clearly ridiculed John Conyers in your earlier post on this thread. I didn't say you ridiculed *me.*

Re: Responding to your response about Conyers: the words "stolen" and "conspiracy" are extreme words. :rolleyes: (I can't believe I have to spend time spelling this out.)

[begin spelling it out]

If I say "bush stole the election, there was a conspiracy" that implies people scheming in dark dusky back rooms, cackling with one another at 2 in the morning and rubbing there hands together ala Monty Burns.

But take this example instead:

One of the campaign ads for Bush showed a person going into a private curtained polling booth. Then a whisper came on the screen as this person debated their choice. The whisper said: "Go ahead. No one will know." And she (or he) voted for Bush.

That ad was *approved* by the reelection campaign. That ad was completely uninformative wrt issues, etc. That ad was one of the dozens of "cues" that any way for Bush to get votes is okay. (Swift Boats is another example. Etc. (This is not sour grapes, show me a list of similar Kerry tactics before making such a claim.)

"People get the drift from other elections and the way [campaign leaders] talk about how they're going to win the election."
So if I say there were "cues" to do whatever it takes to win, and that Bush is delighted to have these legal cues work for him, and he can plead plausible deniability to people actually taking it upon themselves to act illegally to get a few votes here and there ---- This is a conspiracy! But it is nothing *nothing* like what the word conjures up!

[/end spelling it out]

Do you appreciate the distinction here, and what it means when Conyers refuses to say "conspiracy?" And why I do, and why I am asking that you acknowledge the subtleties here??

This is another way of sayiong what I asked above, which you didn't answer:
Do you *at all* recognize that what Conyers said, and what others have said, is *patently different* than the scenarios you keep trying to debunk?

I'd appreciate a response.

Also, you still haven't told me how to replicate your "bush rig election 2004" google in order to get 10 hits, which I asked for twice on the other thread. I'd appreicate a response on this as well.

I'll be away til monday. By then, I assume there will be so much discussion to catch up on, that I won't be able to read through it all. If you (or anyone) has something you'd like me to see or address, please pm me. I *will* definitely look through this thread for the answers to the questions that I just posed.

Thanks Russ!
 
  • #17
Pengwuino said:
Wow, and they call conservatives ignorant :rolleyes:

Think you've been attending too many Bush-effige burnings by cocaine addicts.
Another conservative who thinks their ideas are so self evident that they neglect to add them to their post.

Sorry Penqwuino, I fail to see your point once again.

BTW. Why would Bush and his buddies burn him in effigy?
 
  • #18
There was a concerted effort by Kenneth Blackwell to disenfranchise likely Kerry voters in Ohio. With all the voter registration drives by progressives, democratic registration was far outpacing republican. He instructed his staff to disallow any voter regisration cards if they were not on 50mil paper. An obscure law, put on the books when records were all kept on paper. If the secretary of state, in charge of the election is working to disenfranchise American citizens, something is wrong.

What are you trying to prove Russ?

Are you simply trying to keep us divided like the president has done so effectively?

Are we in the first stages of the end of the great American experiment?
 
  • #19
Politics will always be rigged... politicians are conspirators by nature...

they get business done for their supporters as repayment for a vote...

citizens stand divided... but divided we fall... and the politicians divide & conquer... the last election was a farce... bush or kerry... kerry didn't even try... i think almost anyone in his place with the same campaign could have run harder and made a better presence.

I don't support bush, but voting for kerry was like voting for a statue... plus they never intended for him to win it anyway. They are both part of "skull & bones". Club members of a brotherhood. When u win, i win, we win.

You can say whatever you want against me... i don't expect many people to agree or realize what a joke american politics have really become. i just know that it is... and it seems to be getting worse. I don't have any real respect for the most recent few US Presidents... anyone who is still towing the rope for the Bush Admin is going to eat their words one day and they know it. Let go of your pride and listen to your inner intelligence... you know things are not going good... you can't just follow blindly anymore... I'm going to take a break from PF... so have at me or support the ideas as you will...
 

What level of fraud occurred in the 2004 election?

The level of fraud in the 2004 election has been a heavily debated topic. Here are some of the most frequently asked questions about it:

1. Was there any evidence of fraud in the 2004 election?

There have been some allegations of fraud in the 2004 election, but no conclusive evidence has been found to prove that it occurred on a large scale.

2. What types of fraud were reported in the 2004 election?

Some of the reported types of fraud in the 2004 election include voter intimidation, voter suppression, and irregularities in the voting process. However, these allegations have not been confirmed.

3. Were there any investigations into fraud in the 2004 election?

Yes, there were multiple investigations into fraud in the 2004 election. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted a study and found no evidence of widespread fraud. Additionally, the Department of Justice also investigated and did not find any significant fraud.

4. Did the reported fraud affect the outcome of the 2004 election?

There is no evidence to suggest that the reported fraud significantly impacted the outcome of the 2004 election. The final result was a victory for George W. Bush, and no evidence of fraud was found to alter this outcome.

5. How can we prevent fraud in future elections?

Some measures that can be taken to prevent fraud in future elections include implementing stricter voter ID laws, ensuring secure and accurate voting machines, and conducting regular audits and checks on the voting process. It is also crucial for individuals to report any instances of potential fraud to the appropriate authorities for investigation.

Similar threads

Replies
31
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
7K
  • Poll
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
76
Views
8K
  • Poll
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
68
Views
12K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
7K
Back
Top