Was the 2004 election stolen?

[swansont]

Perhaps, but I doubt even 2% of a states population does that.

 

Has it been established that there were no "other" party candidates in those states? There's also rounding; none of the numbers quoted have more than two digits.

[ecoli]

Has it been established that there were no "other" party candidates in those states?

 

does it matter? Can't you write in anybody?

[Sisyphus]

Technically you can vote for anyone for president, so it's not just two options. Oftentimes there will also be multiple third parties on the ballots, from the likes of the Green Party, Reform Party, Libertarian Party, and assorted wackos who managed to get enough signatures.

[swansont]

Oftentimes there will also be multiple third parties on the ballots

 

I really doubt there can be more than one "third party," but then I'm a stickler. (e.g. I object when reporters say that a composite drawing has been made when there's only one eyewitness)

[JohnB]

Just thought I'd clear up what seems to be a bit of confusion. When I say Photo ID, the usual form here is a Driver's Licence.

 

Other forms of ID are acceptable if they show your name and address and are from a recognised institution. Things like a Phone or power bill for example as these are unlikely to be fraudulently obtained in sufficient numbers to affect the outcome of an election. When using these though, there are extra safeguards built into the system.

[ParanoiA]

Just thought I'd clear up what seems to be a bit of confusion. When I say Photo ID, the usual form here is a Driver's Licence.

 

Other forms of ID are acceptable if they show your name and address and are from a recognised institution. Things like a Phone or power bill for example as these are unlikely to be fraudulently obtained in sufficient numbers to affect the outcome of an election. When using these though, there are extra safeguards built into the system.

 

What if I live in a cardboard box downtown? I shouldn't be required to assimilate to a common lifestyle in order to vote.

[ecoli]

What if I live in a cardboard box downtown? I shouldn't be required to assimilate to a common lifestyle in order to vote.

 

There are such things as government-issued ID cards. I think you can get them at the DMV, although it's not actually a drivers liscence.

 

edit: though, come to think of it, you do need previous ID to be eligible for that... like a bith certificate or something.

[ParanoiA]

There are such things as government-issued ID cards. I think you can get them at the DMV, although it's not actually a drivers liscence.

 

But then you have augmented the wall between you and the voting booth - a government controlled wall. It may sound silly in the midst of a modern day civilized society, but these defensive ideas originated for good reason. Incrementally, society (particularly a socially invasive society such as the US) can exploit this wall to the point that only an "elite" group of people can vote and control the country.

[ecoli]

But, without Identification, how do you protect against fraud? It's the fact that people are willing to fraud the system that such things become necesary.

 

I would say that people voting mulitple times in an election is a violation of MY voting rights. And, it's only since the inception of government-issued identification that this practice has been able to be stopped.

[ParanoiA]

But, without Identification, how do you protect against fraud? It's the fact that people are willing to fraud the system that such things become necesary.

 

I would say that people voting mulitple times in an election is a violation of MY voting rights. And, it's only since the inception of government-issued identification that this practice has been able to be stopped.

 

Actually is has not been stopped at all. That's what's driving the voter ID card initiative. Rather than fixing the problem we have folks that would rather impact the masses and create yet another road block to voting and another bureaucracy we can fund.

 

The problem has more to do with voting poll administration. It is laughable, if not outright depressing, at how much incompetence is empowered at voting polls. Most of this fraud is not investigated. It's time to roast people for voter fraud.

[ecoli]

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that voter fraud is as big a problem today as it was in, say, the 1800's and early 1900's. No ID and they used paper ballots...

[ParanoiA]

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that voter fraud is as big a problem today as it was in, say, the 1800's and early 1900's. No ID and they used paper ballots...

 

I agree, but it is still a big problem. I'm not sure if it differs from state to state or not, but we don't have to have ID to vote here. You just give them your name. You have to be on the list, no if's and's or but's. However, you could still use someone else's name on the list that hasn't voted yet, and isn't likely to vote.

 

Apparently they can get lists of people that didn't vote in previous elections and use the names on these lists to go from poll to poll voting as other people.

 

And, there is a shortsighted audit in the process whereby if it is found that the same person has voted twice - indicating someone likely commited voter fraud - they simply add it as one vote if they are the same, or no vote at all if they are different.

 

So either way, it's somewhat of a win-win for voter fraudsters. However, I still think this can be eliminated almost entirely with some investigation and arrests for a change.

[ecoli]

I agree, but it is still a big problem. I'm not sure if it differs from state to state or not, but we don't have to have ID to vote here. You just give them your name. You have to be on the list, no if's and's or but's. However, you could still use someone else's name on the list that hasn't voted yet, and isn't likely to vote.

 

Where I live, you need an ID you first year, and after that, they don't request one anymore.

 

So either way, it's somewhat of a win-win for voter fraudsters. However, I still think this can be eliminated almost entirely with some investigation and arrests for a change.

 

I guess, they could just claim that there was a mistake with the machinery of the voting booth... I wonder if that argument could hold up in court. Especially if that really DOES happen.

[JohnB]

Who keeps the voter registration records in the US?

 

The parties or the government?

 

Down here the records are kept by the AEC and the rolls are not openly available to the general public. Mainly because they were used as the base for direct mailing lists.

 

The information as to whether a person voted or not is definitely not available. As voting is compulsory down here, failing to vote is a "criminal offence" so the information is "evidence" and therefore priviliged. Very few people actually get prosecuted but the legal fiction keeps snoopers out.

 

The whole thing isn't too expensive as the AEC also looks after the rolls for State and Local Elections. The AEC annual budget is only around $16 million.

[mike90]

Have to reply to something Pangloss said a bit back in this thread. To your comment about the single mom working at Wal-mart making $5 dollars an hour. Since Ive seen you admonish people so regularly for just throwing out biased opinions without evidence or research I have to point this out.

 

I work at a Wal-mart and I make just over $11 dollars an hour. Not a huge sum of money I know, But its more then adequate to fully support myself and I must note that its more then twice what you thought someone would make at Wal-mart.

 

If your going to try to classify a subset of the population as "losers" or inferior in some way by their level of income or place of emplyment, (and it seemed quite clear at least to me that you were doing just that to prove a point you were making) get your facts straight before doing it next time

[ParanoiA]

Who keeps the voter registration records in the US?

 

The parties or the government?

 

Down here the records are kept by the AEC and the rolls are not openly available to the general public. Mainly because they were used as the base for direct mailing lists.

 

The information as to whether a person voted or not is definitely not available. As voting is compulsory down here, failing to vote is a "criminal offence" so the information is "evidence" and therefore priviliged. Very few people actually get prosecuted but the legal fiction keeps snoopers out.

 

The whole thing isn't too expensive as the AEC also looks after the rolls for State and Local Elections. The AEC annual budget is only around $16 million.

 

I believe the government keeps the records and they are apparently up for sale. I heard all of this on the radio on my way home one night. It was Jerry Agar, a conservative talk show guy. Specifically it was targeting people who don't vote. There is a group here in Missouri that is calling people up who didn't vote to try to get them to the voter booth - to ultimately vote for their candidate of course.

 

And for the record, if I remember correctly, the information shows who voted and who didn't - not "what" they voted for or etc..

 

I like the Australian method. It sounds like a winner to me.

[ParanoiA]

Have to reply to something Pangloss said a bit back in this thread. To your comment about the single mom working at Wal-mart making $5 dollars an hour. Since Ive seen you admonish people so regularly for just throwing out biased opinions without evidence or research I have to point this out.

 

I work at a Wal-mart and I make just over $11 dollars an hour. Not a huge sum of money I know, But its more then adequate to fully support myself and I must note that its more then twice what you thought someone would make at Wal-mart.

 

If your going to try to classify a subset of the population as "losers" or inferior in some way by their level of income or place of emplyment, (and it seemed quite clear at least to me that you were doing just that to prove a point you were making) get your facts straight before doing it next time

 

Ok, let's take a look at her comment:

 

Believe me, you're preaching to the choir here, you're just making the mistake of underestimating the American legal machine and its ability to manipulate the media. The moment that Jane Doe, a single mom with three children in public school and a $5/hr job at Wal-Mart, decided that she had been disenfranchised, the entire system was doomed.

 

Nope, I don't see the inferiority or "losers" implication in her point. In fact, she's saying the opposite. The moment the Jane Doe decided that she was "disenfrachised" or arguably a "loser", then the entire system was doomed.

 

She clearly believes that single moms that work at Wal-mart for 5 dollars an hour aren't losers and aren't disenfrachised. I'm inclined to agree.

 

And the fact you make 11 dollars an hour at Wal-mart doesn't mean squat. Different areas of the country will pay differently due to the changes in economy as you travel across the country. You might make 5 dollars an hour in Catoosa, Oklahoma or you might make 15 dollars an hour doing the same job in New York. And that has nothing at all to do with her point.

[Pangloss]

Right, yeah, I think mike90 misunderstood my post there, thanks. I'm fairly convinced something is wrong with my post-marking, too, because I missed that post yesterday. Thanks for catching that misunderstanding there.

 

I'm a guy, by the way. Not that it really matters, it's just easier to follow and catch up on threads when the gender's right.

[ParanoiA]

I'm a guy, by the way. Not that it really matters, it's just easier to follow and catch up on threads when the gender's right.

 

Ok, I'm guilty of associating your avatar as female-ish. Now that's going to mess me up. I've been using a female voice to internally read your posts. Now I have to change it to the internal dude voice. This is going to take some time to adjust...

[mike90]

Ok that was throwing me off too as I was thinking to myself hey i thought Pangloss was a guy. If i misinterpreted what you were trying to say then it was unintentional, it just seemed to be a jab at a certain part of the population to me. And when you are IN that part of the population this could perhaps be seen as insulting.

[iglak]

has anyone mentioned yet the obvious failure of the democratic candidate John Kerry? and how he might have purposefully lost to Bush? and how he might be blood brotheres with Bush in a secret society stationed in Yale ("Skull and Bones")?

how about the democratic primaries? those were potentially stolen also. and the amount of foul play by Kerry is enormous.

how about the fact that Kerry conceded before the election results were announced? and the conspiracy theory that suggests Kerry planned to concede no matter what?

[ParanoiA]

has anyone mentioned yet the obvious failure of the democratic candidate John Kerry? and how he might have purposefully lost to Bush? and how he might be blood brotheres with Bush in a secret society stationed in Yale ("Skull and Bones")?

how about the democratic primaries? those were potentially stolen also. and the amount of foul play by Kerry is enormous.

how about the fact that Kerry conceded before the election results were announced? and the conspiracy theory that suggests Kerry planned to concede no matter what?

 

You're joking right?

[JohnB]

I suppose the hardest things for me to get my around are that in your system you register as a "Democrat" or "Republican" voter and that you have "Exit Polls".

 

The first seems to defeat the purpose of having a secret ballot and the second is both a gross invasion of privacy and can have an effect on the outcome of an election. They just seem odd to me. *shrug*

I like the Australian method. It sounds like a winner to me.

If you ask very politely, Her Majesty may forgive the past and graciously allow you to join the Commonwealth.

 

Seriously though, we're lucky down here. The writers of our Constitution took nearly 10 years to write it. It's modelled on the Constitutions and political processes of Great Britain, The United States of America and France, arguably the three greatest Democracies of the late 19th Century. Each of these had working Parlimentary Democracies for over 100 years by the time we started writing ours.

 

Great Britain had been stable since 1688, France had survived the "Reign of Terror" and America had recently concluded the Civil War. We had the opportunity to see how could go right and how and why things could go horribly wrong and try to write a Constitution that would avoid these things.

The full text of the Australian Constitution is here. You will probably find Sections 30 (Qualifications of Electors), 41 (Rights of Electors of States), 54 (Appropriation Bills), 55 (Tax Bill), 81 (Consolidated Revenue Fund), 83 (Money to be Appropriated by Law) and 128 (Mode of Altering the Constitution) interesting. These I think are the main Sections that differentiate your Democracy from ours.

 

We have no "Bill of Rights" as you do but many of those rights were built into our Constitution from the start. (Trial by Jury, not legislating religion, those sorts of things.) Although "Habeus Corpus", the "Magna Carta" and "The Bill of Rights 1689" are still on our books and regularly refreshed by "Imperial Affermation Acts". Messy I know, but it works for us.

[ParanoiA]

I suppose the hardest things for me to get my around are that in your system you register as a "Democrat" or "Republican" voter and that you have "Exit Polls".

 

The first seems to defeat the purpose of having a secret ballot and the second is both a gross invasion of privacy and can have an effect on the outcome of an election. They just seem odd to me.

 

Well' date=' I don't think registering yourself as democrat or republican defeats the purpose of a secret ballot. Most people vote across party lines here and there, some more than others. I'm a registered Independent, but I vote libertarian 90% of the time.

 

As for invasion of privacy, you're not [i']required[/i] to provide information at exit polls. Most people don't care, so they happily share their vote with the public. But there's no invasion of privacy going on.

 

However, exit polls do undermine the integrity of the election though. It can prompt or disuade folks from even leaving the house to go vote when they see the exit poll results before the deadline. I can't stand it. It just seems like a product of the competitive news networks trying to get a leg up on each other to be the first to report crap. And "crap" is all an exit poll is anyway.

 

 

Seriously though, we're lucky down here. The writers of our Constitution took nearly 10 years to write it. It's modelled on the Constitutions and political processes of Great Britain, The United States of America and France, arguably the three greatest Democracies of the late 19th Century. Each of these had working Parlimentary Democracies for over 100 years by the time we started writing ours.

 

Awesome. It's nice if you can learn the lessons of others rather than learning them yourself, the hard way.

 

I think our country suffers from this romanticism with the way our constitution came to be. It's a great story, and should be taught and appreciated, but I'm a little sick to death of this automatic assumption that our forefathers were all knowing wisemen - the likes of which have yet to be duplicated since.

[iglak]

You're joking right?

 

about which part?

 

 

1) durring the presidential campaign and debates, many people watching John Kerry were wondereing why he didn't take the many chances he had to demolish Bush. many wondered why it seemed like Kerry wasn't even trying.

 

Here is a video of the first 2004 presidential debates.

compare that with this video of Kerry's speech at the 2003 democratic convention.

 

 

2) The Skull and Bones sociecy is a secret society in Yale. John Kerry and George Bush Jr. are members. whether that means anything about the election, i have no idea, because they're a secret society. so this argument is extremely weak. the point being that they have a deep history, and it's concievable that they are in league. This is a link to the basic conspiracy theory surrounding this society and the 2004 election.

 

 

3) the democratic primaries used the same machines as the presidential election. there is almost as much controversy over the primaries as there is over the presidential election relating to the new machines. only, the primaries controversy is a lot less known (and hard to find on google).

 

 

4) in the primaries, Kerry used a lot of foul play to destroy his opponents. especially against Howard Dean, who was actually in the lead in tracking polls in most areas.

 

 

5) wikipedia has a good log of the 2004 presidential election timeline.

a bit more than halfway down the page, there is an "in-depth analysis of the week of 2004 election", in which, listed under November 3, is:

"- On a special edition of Today, Tom Brokaw announces that NBC News will not call any more states for either candidate as long as the Kerry camp contests the Bush win in Ohio. This puts the NBC News electoral vote count at 269 for Bush and 238 for Kerry.

- White House Chief of Staff Andy Card claims victory for Bush before Kerry concedes or any of the networks call a winner.

- AP & CNN report Kerry has called Bush and conceded the election.

- Kerry conceded at 2 p.m. EST CNN, NPR; ABC finally calls Ohio for Bush

- Bush declared victory at 3 p.m. EST saying, "America has spoken, and I'm humbled by the trust and the confidence of my fellow citizens. With that trust comes a duty to serve all Americans. And I will do my best to fulfill that duty every day as your president." Networks have still not declared victors in several states.

- "Black Box Voting (.ORG) is conducting the largest Freedom of Information action in history. At 8:30 p.m. Election Night, Black Box Voting blanketed the U.S. with the first in a series of public records requests, to obtain internal computer logs and other documents from 3,000 individual counties and townships. Networks called the election before anyone bothered to perform even the most rudimentary audit." http://blackboxvoting.org/#foia "

 

John Kerry conceded before the election results were known, and before controversy over the process could be voiced.

 

 

 

 

 

i assure you, i am not joking at all. i believe the conspiracy theory that says Kerry was planted into the presidential election so that Bush would win.