Article: "Kerry Won"

Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Messages
1,376
Reaction score
0
I found this interesting article (*hears several groans*), so I thought I'd post it.

I will state first that I don't present this article as fact, I simply thought it was an interesting read and it gave me some insight in the american election process. Most interesting part is the 'spoilage' phenomenon he mentions.

It was written by Greg Palast and the original can be found here. I removed some links to more information as I didn't feel like copying over the urls and all that, I recommend reading the original anyway, I'm only posting it for the lazy people :p

Anyway I'm in a hurry so here's the article.

[Article start]
Kerry won. Here's the facts.

I know you don't want to hear it. You can't face one more hung chad. But I don't have a choice. As a journalist examining that messy sausage called American democracy, it's my job to tell you who got the most votes in the deciding states. Tuesday, in Ohio and New Mexico, it was John Kerry.

Most voters in Ohio thought they were voting for Kerry. CNN's exit poll showed Kerry beating Bush among Ohio women by 53 percent to 47 percent. Kerry also defeated Bush among Ohio's male voters 51 percent to 49 percent. Unless a third gender voted in Ohio, Kerry took the state.

So what's going on here? Answer: the exit polls are accurate. Pollsters ask, "Who did you vote for?" Unfortunately, they don't ask the crucial, question, "Was your vote counted?" The voters don't know.

Here's why. Although the exit polls show that most voters in Ohio punched cards for Kerry-Edwards, thousands of these votes were simply not recorded. This was predictable and it was predicted.

Once again, at the heart of the Ohio uncounted vote game are, I'm sorry to report, hanging chads and pregnant chads, plus some other ballot tricks old and new.

The election in Ohio was not decided by the voters but by something called "spoilage." Typically in the United States, about 3 percent of the vote is voided, just thrown away, not recorded. When the bobble-head boobs on the tube tell you Ohio or any state was won by 51 percent to 49 percent, don't you believe it ... it has never happened in the United States, because the total never reaches a neat 100 percent. The television totals simply subtract out the spoiled vote.

And not all vote spoil equally. Most of those votes, say every official report, come from African American and minority precincts.

We saw this in Florida in 2000. Exit polls showed Gore with a plurality of at least 50,000, but it didn't match the official count. That's because the official, Secretary of State Katherine Harris, excluded 179,855 spoiled votes. In Florida, as in Ohio, most of these votes lost were cast on punch cards where the hole wasn't punched through completely—leaving a 'hanging chad,'—or was punched extra times. Whose cards were discarded? Expert statisticians investigating spoilage for the government calculated that 54 percent of the ballots thrown in the dumpster were cast by black folks.

And here's the key: Florida is terribly typical. The majority of ballots thrown out (there will be nearly 2 million tossed out from Tuesday's election) will have been cast by African American and other minority citizens.

So here we go again. Or, here we don't go again. Because unlike last time, Democrats aren't even asking Ohio to count these cards with the not-quite-punched holes (called "undervotes" in the voting biz).

Ohio is one of the last states in America to still use the vote-spoiling punch-card machines. And the Secretary of State of Ohio, J. Kenneth Blackwell, wrote before the election, “the possibility of a close election with punch cards as the state’s primary voting device invites a Florida-like calamity.”

But this week, Blackwell, a rabidly partisan Republican, has warmed up to the result of sticking with machines that have a habit of eating Democratic votes. When asked if he feared being this year's Katherine Harris, Blackwell noted that Ms. Fix-it's efforts landed her a seat in Congress.

Exactly how many votes were lost to spoilage this time? Blackwell's office, notably, won't say, though the law requires it be reported. Hmm. But we know that last time, the total of Ohio votes discarded reached a democracy-damaging 1.96 percent. The machines produced their typical loss—that's 110,000 votes—overwhelmingly Democratic.

The Impact Of Challenges

First and foremost, Kerry was had by chads. But the Democrat wasn't punched out by punch cards alone. There were also the 'challenges.' That's a polite word for the Republican Party of Ohio's use of an old Ku Klux Klan technique: the attempt to block thousands of voters of color at the polls. In Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida, the GOP laid plans for poll workers to ambush citizens under arcane laws—almost never used—allowing party-designated poll watchers to finger individual voters and demand they be denied a ballot. The Ohio courts were horrified and federal law prohibits targeting of voters where race is a factor in the challenge. But our Supreme Court was prepared to let Republicans stand in the voting booth door.

In the end, the challenges were not overwhelming, but they were there. Many apparently resulted in voters getting these funky "provisional" ballots—a kind of voting placebo—which may or may not be counted. Blackwell estimates there were 175,000; Democrats say 250,000. Pick your number. But as challenges were aimed at minorities, no one doubts these are, again, overwhelmingly Democratic. Count them up, add in the spoiled punch cards (easy to tally with the human eye in a recount), and the totals begin to match the exit polls; and, golly, you've got yourself a new president. Remember, Bush won by 136,483 votes in Ohio.

Enchanted State's Enchanted Vote

Now, on to New Mexico, where a Kerry plurality—if all votes are counted—is more obvious still. Before the election, in TomPaine.com, I wrote, "John Kerry is down by several thousand votes in New Mexico, though not one ballot has yet been counted."

How did that happen? It's the spoilage, stupid; and the provisional ballots.

CNN said George Bush took New Mexico by 11,620 votes. Again, the network total added up to that miraculous, and non-existent, '100 percent' of ballots cast.

New Mexico reported in the last race a spoilage rate of 2.68 percent, votes lost almost entirely in Hispanic, Native American and poor precincts—Democratic turf. From Tuesday's vote, assuming the same ballot-loss rate, we can expect to see 18,000 ballots in the spoilage bin.

Spoilage has a very Democratic look in New Mexico. Hispanic voters in the Enchanted State, who voted more than two to one for Kerry, are five times as likely to have their vote spoil as a white voter. Counting these uncounted votes would easily overtake the Bush 'plurality.'

Already, the election-bending effects of spoilage are popping up in the election stats, exactly where we'd expect them: in heavily Hispanic areas controlled by Republican elections officials. Chaves County, in the "Little Texas" area of New Mexico, has a 44 percent Hispanic population, plus African Americans and Native Americans, yet George Bush "won" there 68 percent to 31 percent.

I spoke with Chaves' Republican county clerk before the election, and he told me that this huge spoilage rate among Hispanics simply indicated that such people simply can't make up their minds on the choice of candidate for president. Oddly, these brown people drive across the desert to register their indecision in a voting booth.

Now, let's add in the effect on the New Mexico tally of provisional ballots.

"They were handing them out like candy," Albuquerque journalist Renee Blake reported of provisional ballots. About 20,000 were given out. Who got them?

Santiago Juarez who ran the "Faithful Citizenship" program for the Catholic Archdiocese in New Mexico, told me that "his" voters, poor Hispanics, whom he identified as solid Kerry supporters, were handed the iffy provisional ballots. Hispanics were given provisional ballots, rather than the countable kind "almost religiously," he said, at polling stations when there was the least question about a voter's identification. Some voters, Santiago said, were simply turned away.

Your Kerry Victory Party

So we can call Ohio and New Mexico for John Kerry—if we count all the votes.

But that won't happen. Despite the Democratic Party's pledge, the leadership this time gave in to racial disenfranchisement once again. Why? No doubt, the Democrats know darn well that counting all the spoiled and provisional ballots will require the cooperation of Ohio's Secretary of State, Blackwell. He will ultimately decide which spoiled and provisional ballots get tallied. Blackwell, hankering to step into Kate Harris' political pumps, is unlikely to permit anything close to a full count. Also, Democratic leadership knows darn well the media would punish the party for demanding a full count.

What now? Kerry won, so hold your victory party. But make sure the shades are down: it may be become illegal to demand a full vote count under PATRIOT Act III.

I used to write a column for the Guardian papers in London. Several friends have asked me if I will again leave the country. In light of the failure—a second time—to count all the votes, that won't be necessary. My country has left me.
[Article end]
 
I think it should be taken very seriously. As I believe a similar thing happened last election.

This is not democracy, this is complete government control disguised as democracy, 'cheating' to fill in the gaps propaganda fails to.

My opinion.
 
Bah, first paragraph demonstrated his flaw.

Exit polls are not accurate. They determine where to do there exit polling off of past historical elections. That means if a population shifts, or additional voting in other areas, it will not be reflected in exit polls. Additionally, exit polling is done a very few select precincts. Therefore there is no guarantee that their sample is accurate.

Exit polling was one of the reasons for the 2000 election fiasco.
 
Yeah, blah is right. Exit polls aren't accurate for anything other than determining why voters chose a candidate. Not how many.

Until some evidence pops up to the contrary, the problem here isn't so easily explainable as "Bush Cheatzor!"
It's that around 51% of americans actually voted for the guy who is generally considered the suckiest of the two candidates.
 
Yeah, blah is right. Exit polls aren't accurate for anything other than determining why voters chose a candidate. Not how many.

Until some evidence pops up to the contrary, the problem here isn't so easily explainable as "Bush Cheatzor!"
It's that around 51% of americans actually voted for the guy who is generally considered the suckiest of the two candidates.
First: Blah is right, the exit polls arent accurate. They dont poll everybody and who knows if the people are telling the truth about who they voted for. The exit poll taken across country is generally considered the best out there, yet they only poll 12,000 people and called the election wrong in almost every state.

How is he generally considered the 'suckiest' if he won by a majority? Woudnt Kerry be 'generally' considered the suckiest?
 
seinfeldrules said:
How is he generally considered the 'suckiest' if he won by a majority? Woudnt Kerry be 'generally' considered the suckiest?

Depends who you talk to. America might say Kerry was suckier. The world would say Bush was suckier.
 
Depends who you talk to. America might say Kerry was suckier. The world would say Bush was suckier.
America did say Kerry was 'suckier'.

After reading the entire article, it seems to have a whiny sort of attitude. The writer seems to blame everything but the American people for the outcome of the election.
 
Even if exit polls are not as accurate as the writer proclaims, there are still obvious problems with the 'ballot-voting' system (for lack of a better word) resulting in uncounted votes. It hurts the democracy.

I would also like to mention this thread isn't intended to be about how Kerry should have won, it's about problems involving the voting. Whether they affected the result we can't say for sure, and it's not the point either. Granted, this may not be the best article to use for a more objective discussion, but you can't have it all.
 
Sometimes losers is politics screams foul play because they can't accept the fact they lost. What's new?
 
Allright, so so far in this thread we've determind SEVERAL times that exit polls arent accurate and we've also determind that US thought kerry suckd, and the world thought that bush sucked. Can we please continue with discussion how the votin system sucks?
 
Voting screw-ups:
Florida: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/10099198.htm?1c
North Carolina:http://www3.cjad.com/content/cp_article.asp?id=/global_feeds/canadianpress/worldnews/w110474A.htm
Texas: http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/4154/
1,100+ e-voting glitches reported: http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/11/02/HNevoteglitch_1.html


hmmm... Lots of coruption going on?

Huge difference in exit polls and actual results: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00072.htm
Reasons Kerry won: http://www.tompaine.com/articles/kerry_won_.php
Suprising results in Florida election: http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm
Election was rigged: http://www.opednews.com/kall_110404_outrage.htm
Diebold is the devil: http://www.opednews.com/thoreau_110404_diebold.htm

If you are under the impression that there was fraud: http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
go there and see how you can help

"In more than 30 reported cases, when voters reviewed their choices before finalizing them, an electronic voting machine indicated they had voted for a different candidate...
...In a majority of cases where machines allegedly recorded a wrong vote, votes were taken away from Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, or a Democratic candidate in another race, and given to Republican President George Bush or another Republican candidate, said Cindy Cohn, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)."

"Most voters in Ohio thought they were voting for Kerry. At 1:05 a.m. Wednesday morning, CNN's exit poll showed Kerry beating Bush among Ohio women by 53 percent to 47 percent. The exit polls were later combined with—and therefore contaminated by—the tabulated results, ultimately becoming a mirror of the apparent actual vote. [To read about the skewing of exit polls to conform to official results, click here .] Kerry also defeated Bush among Ohio's male voters 51 percent to 49 percent. Unless a third gender voted in Ohio, Kerry took the state."

" This election has zero credibility and must be overturned."
 
seinfeldrules said:
How is he generally considered the 'suckiest' if he won by a majority? Woudnt Kerry be 'generally' considered the suckiest?
On the world scale, Kerry is vastly prefered. I should have cleared that up. America is somewhat of a statistical anomaly in supporting Bush.

Of course, I'd also say it's fairly evident that Bush won because he was the suckier candidate, but also the better catholic.
...but that's a topic for a different thread, please! :p
Sorry I accidentally diverted this one. Continue with your lives.
 
oh man... a greg palast article. yay. its funny how he sources an article, that sources a different article that he wrote... rofl. yes, greg palast = a highly credible source of information. and if you believe that, that's the first step to understanding why you lost this election. read the nov. 7th entry of this blog. thats just for starters.

bush won this election, fair and square, just like he did in 2000. get the f*ck over it.
 
Exit polls don't work very well. In Minnesota Kerry was suppose to win with 57 percent but only won with 51.
 
othello said:
bush won this election, fair and square, just like he did in 2000. get the f*ck over it.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Just...

Wrong.

And that blog is biased beyond Hell.
 
The one thing I don't like about so many people believing in this election that mistake may have been what put Bush in power a second time. In reality the chances that mistakes were made in Bushes favour are the same as mistakes that could have been made in Kerry's favour.

It just seems like mistakes only went in favour of Bush because he is the one who won.
 
Absinthe said:
Wrong.

Wrong.

Just...

Wrong.

And that blog is biased beyond Hell.

no no... its not wrong, and its been proven to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt many times, by the left and the right alike. that blog has an opinion, sure, but as i said read it, "just for starters". the greg palast 'article' has way more ill-contrived distortions and untruths than the blog.
 
othello said:
no no... its not wrong, and its been proven to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt many times, by the left and the right alike.

No, it has not. It's possible that Bush may have won fair and square. It's possible that Gore won. We'll probably never know.
 
The Mullinator said:
The one thing I don't like about so many people believing in this election that mistake may have been what put Bush in power a second time. In reality the chances that mistakes were made in Bushes favour are the same as mistakes that could have been made in Kerry's favour.

It just seems like mistakes only went in favour of Bush because he is the one who won.
The point is that they're saying it's not mistakes... but a calculated effort to omit votes of certain groups that are predominantly liberal. Whether or not it's true, I can't say... but I could see politicians doing something like that. It certainly seems like it happened 4 years ago.

othello said:
no no... its not wrong, and its been proven to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt many times, by the left and the right alike. that blog has an opinion, sure, but as i said read it, "just for starters". the greg palast 'article' has way more ill-contrived distortions and untruths than the blog.
He bolded the part about the last election being fair... because it wasn't. The race came down to about 500 votes in Florida. Now, with that close a race you'd think they would go back and check, double check, and triple check every single vote... but you'd be wrong. In 2000, the areas in which the recounts needed to be done in Florida were much more liberal than conservative... and the case was rushed to the Supreme Court because they knew if the "re"counting of those votes went on that their margin of over 500 votes (which, at the time the Supreme Court stopped the recounting, had already shrunk to 154) would be replaced with a negative number. The Supreme Court said the reasoning was that, if the recount continued, it could "threaten irreparable harm to petitioner (George Bush)." Clarence Thomas (one of the justices)'s wife worked, at the time, for a conservative think tank that helped the G-Dub get elected. When Dan Rather said that it looked like Florida was going for Gore, Sandra Day O'Conner was heard blurting out "That's just terrible" (the Wall Street Journal had three witnesses at the party to confirm this and Newsweek found two). Also, even if you don't believe that... there were also almost 60 thousand voters that were put on a list (by a private company with strong Republican ties) of votes to be stricken because they "might" have been criminals when, in fact, only 1 in 20 of them was (that's 5%). Now, 95% of 57000 is 54150... and considering that the majority of people on the list (54%, or about 29241, to be more precise) were black, which had a very high concentration of Democrats, it could (and almost certainly would) easily have shifted the state into the blue. You're probably saying "but they checked the names and only struck the votes of the felons, right?" I wish that was the way it happened. Sadly, a very influential Bush supporter (Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris*) told them, instead, to not check any of the names. Why didn't the media do anything about it? Well, they called up Jeb Bush and he said it wasn't true.

* Now in Congress.
 
Kerry lost.

Bush won.

Now they are screaming "stolen election".

If Bush had lost we would not be hearing this garbage, nor any kind of conspiracy theories and wild accusations including high flying CIA plans electronically changing votes, conspiracies with the "Bush regime" et cetera ad nauseam.

Kerry lost.

Get over it.

The rest of the world is watchng in sheer disgust.
 
Grey Fox said:
Hey but what about the links Jmechy gave:

Suprising results in Florida election: http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm

Diebold is the devil: http://www.opednews.com/thoreau_110404_diebold.htm

1,100+ e-voting glitches reported: http://www.infoworld.com/article/04...teglitch_1.html
Better take a look at all his links.

I mean Look a the difference between the ES&S and Diebold. Thats just scary.

Yay, for misleading statistics. Basing the percentage of votes gained/lossed off of your registered political party is faulty logic at best.

A slightly better solution would be to take the actual results for Florida and compare that with national party data. For instance compare how many democrats deviated from the democratic ticket compared to the national average. That would provide you with some more valuable data. Even then that wouldn't provide you with much useful data.

When statistics are used properly, they can bring to light very interesting data. On the other hand, it is very easy to make useless or misleading data. UStogether.org isn't a non-partisan site.
 
If Bush had lost we would not be hearing this garbage, nor any kind of conspiracy theories and wild accusations including high flying CIA plans electronically changing votes, conspiracies with the "Bush regime" et cetera ad nauseam.

That is very true.
 
SunHawk said:
If Bush had lost we would not be hearing this garbage, nor any kind of conspiracy theories and wild accusations including high flying CIA plans electronically changing votes, conspiracies with the "Bush regime" et cetera ad nauseam.


"once bitten twice shy"
 
Damn guys really...get over it.He lost...just look foward to the fact Bush won't get a 3rd term. (and no I'm not taking Bush or Kerrys side)
 
Absinthe said:
No, it has not. It's possible that Bush may have won fair and square. It's possible that Gore won. We'll probably never know.

lol... nope, sorry. bush won fair and square this year, just like he did in 2000. again, this has been proven time and time again, i'm sorry if you haven't taken the time to research it yourself, but that doesn't change the fact that its true.

to the much longer post below yours, the reason the case was rushed to the supreme court was because al gore was a little crybaby, and he decided to bypass state law. yay gore. and even if gore had gotten exactly what he wanted, the recount still would've shown bush as the winner (by a larger margin, i might add).
 
othello said:
lol... nope, sorry. bush won fair and square this year, just like he did in 2000. again, this has been proven time and time again, i'm sorry if you haven't taken the time to research it yourself, but that doesn't change the fact that its true.

But it's not true, and you'd be incredibly ignorant for thinking otherwise.

And I didn't make the longer post, so don't bring the other half of your comment up to me.
 
Absinthe said:
But it's not true, and you'd be incredibly ignorant for thinking otherwise.

And I didn't make the longer post, so don't bring the other half of your comment up to me.

lol this could go on for days. it's fine, i've come to expect nothing more from the delusional bush-hateing crowd. again... just because you havent taken the time to research it, doesnt make it any less true. bush won. fair and square. in 2000 & 2004. its that simple. basking in your ignorance won't change that. its really not as hard to research a subject as you may think it is. give it a try. enlighten yourself. it'd be well worth it, so in future instances, you wont come off so uneducatedly smug and puerile.
 
its that simple. basking in your ignorance won't change that. its really not as hard to research a subject as you may think it is. give it a try. enlighten yourself. it'd be well worth it, so in future instances, you wont come off so uneducatedly smug and puerile.

You should see some of the lunatic left bleating everything from a Diebold conspiracy to Halliburton "conclaves"..they wont let it go and will keep up this garbage for four years.

Sore losers and morons.

In a way, it's sickening. They didnt get what they wanted so will now kick and scream, like some addled three year old.

But it's not true, and you'd be incredibly ignorant for thinking otherwise.

The election is over.There won't be another one.

Bush won.

Kerry lost.

GET OVER IT ALREADY
 
othello said:
lol this could go on for days. it's fine, i've come to expect nothing more from the delusional bush-hateing crowd. again... just because you havent taken the time to research it, doesnt make it any less true. bush won. fair and square. in 2000 & 2004. its that simple. basking in your ignorance won't change that. its really not as hard to research a subject as you may think it is. give it a try. enlighten yourself. it'd be well worth it, so in future instances, you wont come off so uneducatedly smug and puerile.

Bah, don't you patronize me. I've done my homework and I've concluded that the 2000 election was a very fishy affair and that it's impossible to determine wether or not that election was actually fair.

If lumping me in with the rest of the Bush-haters makes you feel better, then okay. When it comes to people like you, I'd expect nothing less than the constant felatio you give to your President.

Ta.
 
SunHawk said:
Bush won.

Kerry lost.

GET OVER IT ALREADY

I also wish I could treat something this serious as a board game. I wish I had the ability to reach over, shake your hand, slap you on the back, and congratulate you. I wish I could pay my respects to the victor.

But I can't. I can't do that because I don't trust Bush. I don't trust his election. I don't trust his wars. I don't trust his statements to the Press. I don't trust his decision-making abilities in the most powerful seat in the world. I disagree with almost everything he's done and I think we're all the worse for it.

So you'll have to excuse people for the continued "Bush-Bashing", regardless of his second term.
 
Well didn't gore win, in fact the republican judges acted agains the law as far as I know. Because they had made just laws especially for this kind of a situation, but the supreme court decides that just this once they wouldn use them and they made clear that it only implies in this case, and as far is I know on judge(dem) made a statement that, that day court inpartiallity( i think this is the right word) had died, oh yeah and one rep. judge had also a son that was immedietly appointed in a high position by bush and one wife of a judge worked for the bush campain. You can beliefe me or not thats your decission, I don't have links to sites to support me, I saw this on TV, but if Stern mixes in the debate he is probably going to have a few links so pm him if you don't beliefe me.
But you people shouldn't have judges appointed by politiciens and the sad thing is everybody knows this but no one is trying to change this that.
 
Anyone saying the 2000 election was 100% a definite victory for Bush is, at the very least, ignorant... the stuff I listed wasn't even all of the dirty stuff that was going on. Another thing they did in mostly black areas was make the machines accept invalid ballots (not completely punched, accidentally punched twice, etc) and voiding them instead of sending it right back out so the votes could be re-cast (as they did in white districts). With all the stuff done almost solely to black people it would appear that some people didn't want black people to vote... and when you consider that they were statistically liberal it makes it easy to see who would want to suppress them. I could go on... but I think the many examples of shady activity I've already given (this post and #23) should be enough to at least put some doubt in any but the most stubborn minds (especially considering the fact that the margin of "victory" at the time the recount was stopped was less than 0.003% of the total population of the state).
 
Absinthe said:
Bah, don't you patronize me. I've done my homework and I've concluded that the 2000 election was a very fishy affair and that it's impossible to determine wether or not that election was actually fair.

If lumping me in with the rest of the Bush-haters makes you feel better, then okay. When it comes to people like you, I'd expect nothing less than the constant felatio you give to your President.

Ta.

mmk... because i defend bush, i must be a bush-loving, dick-sucking conservative, right? i'm more of a moderate than anything, and the only reason i defend bush is because he's worth defending. he's been a good president so far, and im sick of all the ignorant bush-haters spewing forth their unknowing opinions and immature views. again, its not my fault that the evidence and facts support bush and his supporters.

Anyone saying the 2000 election was 100% a definite victory for Bush is, at the very least, ignorant...

right... and then you go on and babble about racial disenfranchisement and other incredibly 'ignorant' sentiments. you guys are sad... a little advice: DO SOME F*CKING RESEARCH!!! seriously... this is getting tiring, how unenlightened you people come off as. in 24 of the 25 florida counties with the highest ballot spoilage rate, the county supervisor was a democrat. in the 25th county, the supervisor was an independent. as for the "felon purge list," the miami herald found that whites were twice as likely to be incorrectly placed on the list as blacks.

bush won, both in 2000 and 2004, fair and square. get the f*ck over it. thanks.
 
othello said:
right... and then you go on and babble about racial disenfranchisement and other incredibly 'ignorant' sentiments. you guys are sad... a little advice: DO SOME F*CKING RESEARCH!!! seriously... this is getting tiring, how unenlightened you people come off as. in 24 of the 25 florida counties with the highest ballot spoilage rate, the county supervisor was a democrat. in the 25th county, the supervisor was an independent. as for the "felon purge list," the miami herald found that whites were twice as likely to be incorrectly placed on the list as blacks.
Did I ever say Al Gore won in 2000 or John Kerry won in 2004? Nope. I just said that with all the shit that went on in those elections no one can be 100% SURE that George Bush should have won through the electoral college system in either case if all of the votes were counted (though, not nearly as much in 2004 because he actually won the popular vote by a few million, unlike 2000 where he lost it by half a million). I'm probably somewhere above 90% sure that George Bush would have won this one no matter what happened... but I honestly have no clue regarding the 2000... and I don't see how some people can say (without any qualifiers signifying any sort of doubt) that a certain candidate legitimately won or should have won the 2000 election. It's just not logically possible to come to a conclusion like that (in favor of either side) when you take into account the huge number of votes that weren't counted (compared to the 500 votes that determined the election) and the margin of possible human error/corruption. By all means, call me ignorant if you can explain how you know with absolute certainty that about 49.9% or more of the 150,000+ voters whose votes got invalidated along with the 50,000+ wrongly labelled as felons would have definately voted for Bush (enough to keep the 500 vote lead from disappearing if they were all counted). Either prove that or admit that you aren't absolutely sure about the outcome of the 2000 election. I'm not smart enough to make up my mind with such a level of inconclusive evidence. Please "enlighten" me.

EDIT: Sure, there may have been more white people on the "felon purge list" but, statistically speaking, the number of blacks and hispanics on the list was disproportionately high. Are you saying the NAACP filed a suit over the purge list for no reason? Anyway, that's not even the main reason I mentioned the list. I was talking about how Katherine Harris, who was campaigning for Bush, told the conservative company that made the list not to bother checking the accuracy of the list. That's the part about the purge list that really disturbed me. Also, I don't care who was supervising the elections. Just so you know, I voted for a Republican election supervisor because I know him personally and I trust him (I'm registered as an independant and I'm politically centrist, leaning a bit toward libertarian, so it wasn't really breaking any party affiliation... since I have none). Still, if votes were wrongly invalidated something should be done about it, regardless of their party affiliation.
 
Back
Top