actually i was referring to northgate's post, not whatever was posted after that. he was talking about the voting machines, as was i.
i couldn't care less about whatever voting trivia got tossed in after the fact.
in the original example, was there, or was there not voting fraud?
(the other info is a good topic for another thread, but really doesn't have much to do with voting machines, unless you think that the people in Florida had something to do with the voting machines in Georgia)
You're missing the point. Sometimes democrat candidates win, sometimes they lose. The point is that the 2000 presidential election was awarded to Bush without a proper counting of the votes or a proper investigation of whether or not the democratic process had been served. Anyone who cares about democracy should care about this, no matter how partisan they are.
Not that's not true. The votes were properly counted. Using the counting machines. Then they were recounted. Then when Gore didn't win things got improper. He tried to rig the election with special hand recounts only in those area that he stood to gain votes and maybe influence the counting. Every count of the votes shows Bush winning. Even the special count funded by the major news papers by the UofC group. The only thing the court did was let the law stand.
Well all voting machines are to be certified in Georgia...
it's possible that if they were not... than the vote would not be valid.
The digital voting machine's software was being updated until the last minute... you would think everything would be well tested and vetted BEFORE the election... not "cross your fingers and hope it works"
There wouldn't even have to be "tampering" to get wrong results if the software wasn't properly finished.
How many lines of code would it take to give every say 10th vote of one candidate to a different candidate? We don't know. And Deibold isn't talking.
Only because they never properly counted the votes.
If you are going to say that then you have to say that a "proper count" is impossible. The private groups at UofC did a full analysis of the votes and .... Bush won. What more can you ask for.
When all is said and done about the 2000 election two questions remain.
1) Why oh why do you keep the electoral system that doesn´t reflect what the majority of the voters want? Yes I know "Its the United STATES of America" which isn´t a real argument. And "It prevents discrimination against sparsely populated states" which simply is not true. The only argument EVER presented for that view the numeral times discussed here is "If you can´t see it then you are stupid" which I hope everybody can see isn´t a valid argument either . You could argue that the electoral system make it easier for the candidates to focus on swing states and/or their own sure states and enough swing states to get the magical 50%. AND it heavily discriminates voters of the losing candidate in all states but mostly in swing states. And finally it discriminates ALL the voters in sure states.
2) Why oh why isn´t there being done something about the legislation surrounding the electional process to prevent a similar situation as in 2000? Do you really want the charade to happen again?
That said I still want to struggle Liebermann each time he say "I am the only one of the candidates that can actually win over Bush. Why? Because I already did it". Get over it noone wants a whiner as their leader.
You don't know what I'm taking about do you? The rerererererereererrererercount funded by the papers and done by the group at U of Chicago? I'll find the link but ...
If you are going to say that then you have to say that a "proper count" is impossible. The private groups at UofC did a full analysis of the votes and .... Bush won. What more can you ask for.
Well, Bush won under some recounts, but Gore won under some of the possible recounts too.
And the larger point of the analyses was that Gore should have won - that more people's votes showed the intent to vote for him than Bush. For example, if the "overvotes" had been counted, Gore would have won by thousands of votes, IIRC. Those are the votes where someone clicked for Gore on the ballot, but to make sure it was clear who they wanted, they also wrote-in Gore. Those votes were counted as illegal votes, despite the fact that the law says the "intent of the voter" should be the ultimate decider.
My analogy is that Bush is like OJ; sure, we all respect the law and know he technically got off, but that doesn't change the fact that we know he's really guilty.
So what your saying is that if the votes that are invalid thought the voters' own error had been counted illegally then Gore would have won. Then again maybe if media hadn't called the state for Gore long before the polls closed more Bush voters would have made to the polling places.
blah blah blah is goes on and on.
Bush won the legal recount. He won the special contracted recount using the legal measure of a vote. What more do you want?
1. Under the most likely possible recount methods that the Florida Supreme Court could have ordered, Bush would have won, but under some methods, Gore would have won too.
2. If the "intent of the voter" standard had been followed, and it should have because that's what the Florida statutes say, Gore would have won because there were enough votes where the voter both wrote in and punched a hole for Gore. There, the intent of the voter is clear and a full hand recount would have picked those up. This is what should have happened if Bush hadn't sued Gore in the courts to run out the clock.
3. Based on the pattern of errors there were thousands of votes that Gore should have picked up if the ballots had been better designed. For example, if someone voted for all liberals but then voted for both Buchanan and Gore for president, when Buchanan's hole was next to Gore's name. Of course those could not have been legally counted under any scenario, because you can't really be sure who the person wanted to vote for, but any reasonable person would admit that it shows that more people wanted Gore to win than Bush.
You don't know what I'm taking about do you? The rerererererereererrererercount funded by the papers and done by the group at U of Chicago? I'll find the link but ...
Oh I know what you were talking about...I wanted to see a link to NORC declaring that Bush won.
You won't find one, by the way. NORC didn't declare anything (by policy), and the results of their recount were interpreted in different ways by different media sources. "If the votes were counted this way, Bush would have won...if they were counted this way, Gore would have won." I want to see the results from a recount that included every legal vote in the state and examined every ballot (a thousand or so were not reviewed by NORC).
They reviewed more than a thousand. You make my point for me. The only "proper" count of the votes is the one done by the elections officials using the methods and laws in place at the time of the election. Not the the one done using special methods and done in selected areas to produce the desired result.
They reviewed more than a thousand. You make my point for me. The only "proper" count of the votes is the one done by the elections officials using the methods and laws in place at the time of the election. Not the the one done using special methods and done in selected areas to produce the desired result.
Bush one fair and square.
Applying the "intent of the voter" isn't a special method. Purging 'felon' lists is a special method.
Comments
i couldn't care less about whatever voting trivia got tossed in after the fact.
in the original example, was there, or was there not voting fraud?
(the other info is a good topic for another thread, but really doesn't have much to do with voting machines, unless you think that the people in Florida had something to do with the voting machines in Georgia)
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
[B]...
You're missing the point. Sometimes democrat candidates win, sometimes they lose. The point is that the 2000 presidential election was awarded to Bush without a proper counting of the votes or a proper investigation of whether or not the democratic process had been served. Anyone who cares about democracy should care about this, no matter how partisan they are.
Not that's not true. The votes were properly counted. Using the counting machines. Then they were recounted. Then when Gore didn't win things got improper. He tried to rig the election with special hand recounts only in those area that he stood to gain votes and maybe influence the counting. Every count of the votes shows Bush winning. Even the special count funded by the major news papers by the UofC group. The only thing the court did was let the law stand.
it's possible that if they were not... than the vote would not be valid.
The digital voting machine's software was being updated until the last minute... you would think everything would be well tested and vetted BEFORE the election... not "cross your fingers and hope it works"
There wouldn't even have to be "tampering" to get wrong results if the software wasn't properly finished.
How many lines of code would it take to give every say 10th vote of one candidate to a different candidate? We don't know. And Deibold isn't talking.
Ballots that were mailed after the election or not properly witnessed.
And actaully the vote was so close a recount was required by Fla. law.
Gore didn't have to request a recount. They were supposed to do it anyway.
There is nothing improper about requesting a recount.
But he should have requested a statewide count.
It's the Republican's that went to court to STOP the recounts.
Originally posted by Scott
Every count of the votes shows Bush winning.
Only because they never properly counted the votes.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Only because they never properly counted the votes.
If you are going to say that then you have to say that a "proper count" is impossible. The private groups at UofC did a full analysis of the votes and .... Bush won. What more can you ask for.
1) Why oh why do you keep the electoral system that doesn´t reflect what the majority of the voters want? Yes I know "Its the United STATES of America" which isn´t a real argument. And "It prevents discrimination against sparsely populated states" which simply is not true. The only argument EVER presented for that view the numeral times discussed here is "If you can´t see it then you are stupid" which I hope everybody can see isn´t a valid argument either
2) Why oh why isn´t there being done something about the legislation surrounding the electional process to prevent a similar situation as in 2000? Do you really want the charade to happen again?
That said I still want to struggle Liebermann each time he say "I am the only one of the candidates that can actually win over Bush. Why? Because I already did it".
Originally posted by Scott
The private groups at UofC did a full analysis of the votes and .... Bush won.
Link?
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Link?
You don't know what I'm taking about do you? The rerererererereererrererercount funded by the papers and done by the group at U of Chicago? I'll find the link but ...
http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/031208fa_fact
Originally posted by Scott
If you are going to say that then you have to say that a "proper count" is impossible. The private groups at UofC did a full analysis of the votes and .... Bush won. What more can you ask for.
Well, Bush won under some recounts, but Gore won under some of the possible recounts too.
And the larger point of the analyses was that Gore should have won - that more people's votes showed the intent to vote for him than Bush. For example, if the "overvotes" had been counted, Gore would have won by thousands of votes, IIRC. Those are the votes where someone clicked for Gore on the ballot, but to make sure it was clear who they wanted, they also wrote-in Gore. Those votes were counted as illegal votes, despite the fact that the law says the "intent of the voter" should be the ultimate decider.
My analogy is that Bush is like OJ; sure, we all respect the law and know he technically got off, but that doesn't change the fact that we know he's really guilty.
blah blah blah is goes on and on.
Bush won the legal recount. He won the special contracted recount using the legal measure of a vote. What more do you want?
But I'd like to see our voting methods improved enough so that the winner actually reflects the will of the voters.
[edit]OK, here's a good link with the basics of what the study found.
1. Under the most likely possible recount methods that the Florida Supreme Court could have ordered, Bush would have won, but under some methods, Gore would have won too.
2. If the "intent of the voter" standard had been followed, and it should have because that's what the Florida statutes say, Gore would have won because there were enough votes where the voter both wrote in and punched a hole for Gore. There, the intent of the voter is clear and a full hand recount would have picked those up. This is what should have happened if Bush hadn't sued Gore in the courts to run out the clock.
3. Based on the pattern of errors there were thousands of votes that Gore should have picked up if the ballots had been better designed. For example, if someone voted for all liberals but then voted for both Buchanan and Gore for president, when Buchanan's hole was next to Gore's name. Of course those could not have been legally counted under any scenario, because you can't really be sure who the person wanted to vote for, but any reasonable person would admit that it shows that more people wanted Gore to win than Bush.
Lots information re. the findings of computer scientists and election specialists here: http://www.verifiedvoting.org/ (extremely worrying)
also http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." - Josef Stalin
Originally posted by Scott
You don't know what I'm taking about do you? The rerererererereererrererercount funded by the papers and done by the group at U of Chicago? I'll find the link but ...
Oh I know what you were talking about...I wanted to see a link to NORC declaring that Bush won.
You won't find one, by the way. NORC didn't declare anything (by policy), and the results of their recount were interpreted in different ways by different media sources. "If the votes were counted this way, Bush would have won...if they were counted this way, Gore would have won." I want to see the results from a recount that included every legal vote in the state and examined every ballot (a thousand or so were not reviewed by NORC).
Bush one fair and square.
Originally posted by Scott
Bush one fair and square.
Insofar as Al Gore polled 2,000,000 more votes nationwide, yes, Bush won fair and square. I suppose you have a point.
Originally posted by Matsu
Actually, Bush one lost round two.
Bush - 1
Gore - 0
Originally posted by Scott
They reviewed more than a thousand. You make my point for me. The only "proper" count of the votes is the one done by the elections officials using the methods and laws in place at the time of the election. Not the the one done using special methods and done in selected areas to produce the desired result.
Bush one fair and square.
Applying the "intent of the voter" isn't a special method. Purging 'felon' lists is a special method.