Do you think the election was fair?

[Rickortreat]

In a democracy, the winner should be the one who got the most votes.  But what if the the ones who counted the votes had a bias?  And what if the machines were produced by people with a bias?  Would you still trust the outcome of an election then?

And, how would you feel, even if the candidate you voted for won, if it was proved that he won by a manipulation of the vote?

2000 Election:
http://www.bushflash.com/gta.html


November 08, 2004
A Tale of Two Brothers: EVoting in the USA

http://tinyurl.com/5md7f

http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/12/imag...avit_120604.pdf

I'll let you draw your own conclusions.  :eek2:  

[spursfan101]

I wouldn't put this past anybody. I don't think our elections our tamperproof, sure, they might not be as blatant as POISONING your opposition, but I think some techies could have potentially mucked it up, especially when you look at all the exit poll data that was blatantly incorrect..

I'm not saying the election WAS tampered with, I'm just being realistic that it is possible.

[ziggy]

In a democracy, the winner should be the one who got the most votes.  But what if the the ones who counted the votes had a bias?  And what if the machines were produced by people with a bias?  Would you still trust the outcome of an election then?

And, how would you feel, even if the candidate you voted for won, if it was proved that he won by a manipulation of the vote?

2000 Election:
http://www.bushflash.com/gta.html


November 08, 2004
A Tale of Two Brothers: EVoting in the USA

http://tinyurl.com/5md7f

http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/12/imag...avit_120604.pdf

I'll let you draw your own conclusions.  :eek2:

First if it can be proven that there was fraud in an election then absolutely we should prosecute those who committed the fraud, Republican or Democrat.

If the fraud was pervasive enough that it allowed the loser to win, then a significant investigation needs to happen to determine if recall/impeachment or criminal prosecution is the appropriate remedy.

We would then need to develop processes that assure that our elections are legit, and can't be tampered with in the future.

Of course at this point there is no credible information that the 2000 election was in fact fruadulently stolen by Katherine Harris or anyone else.  What we have is a bunch of radical fring types who are making a great many unsubstantiated allegations.  Just because it shows up on a web site doesn't mean it is true.  If it is true and can be proven, then by all means remove her from Congress and throw the bitch in jail.  At this point of course there isn't any evidence it is true and it hasn't been proven to be true.

If the presidential election in Ohio this year was fraudulent then of course we should get all the facts and prosecute those responsible.  If the fraud allowed Bush to win when he actually didn't then I would support removing him from office.  We cannot allow that type of thing to happen.  Constitutionally Cheney would become President, unless of course he was also impeached, at which point Dennis Hastert would become President.  

Of course once again there is no proof of fraud.  There is no proof of anything but some miscounted votes, which will be the case in every election, as no process is foolproof.  All we have are unfounded allegations by the lunatic fringe.  They will remain the lunatic fringe, until there is proof that what they say has some truth to it.

[rickortreat]

I agree. no actual proof yet, but it DOES SMELL.  The last link I posted, about the deposition was the most signifigant, as it indicates official involment with a voting machine company.  That there was a murder involved, alleuded to in the deposition makes me very curious as to what really happened.

As it is, I'm more than a little dissapointed in the Democratic Party.  How could they allow the voting machine industry to be entirely run by Republican party supporters or foreigners?  Futher how could they allow they approval of voting machines with no paper trail, or any way to determine that the machines recorded the votes as the voters intended.

It seems to me, the Dems have a lot to gain if they could proove that the Republicans stole the election, so either they looked into this and found no proof, or found it unproovable, or were paid off to look the other way this time around.

 

[Joe Vancil]

It seems to me, the Dems have a lot to gain if they could proove that the Republicans stole the election, so either they looked into this and found no proof, or found it unproovable, or were paid off to look the other way this time around.

Or, possibly, are (just as) corrupt, and feel that they can do as good or better of a job of rigging elections using such machines as their competitors.

The fact is BOTH political parties approved machines without a paper trail - which is somewhat stupid, if you ask me.

The question is whether it is deceit, or ignorance.  Trying to make that determination about a political party is difficult, because they've got BOTH traits mastered.

 

[guest-koast]

With the way we have it setup, yes it was fair.  Overall, Id say know.  I think the electoral college voting is flawed.  

[Guest]

With the way we have it setup, yes it was fair.  Overall, Id say know.  I think the electoral college voting is flawed.

LOL!!! Meant "no" not "know" I had when Im on the phone and typing at the same time.  People will talk to me and sometimes I type what the say, like right now....

"I know I shut down my computer but someone was logged in when I showed up"

[Rickortreat]

Actually Joe, the Democrats did not approve the use of these machines, as they were placed in states were the Republicans were in control of the local legislatures.

They should, however, have raised much more of a stink about their use.  To embarrass the Republicans into not using machines without an audit trail.