Slashdot Mirror
2004 Election Weirdness Continues
I've read dozens of submissions about election anomalies in the last week and they show no sign of slowing so I've decided to post a few of the main ones here to let you all discuss them. The first is the Common Dreams report
that shows that
optically scanned votes have a strange anomoly in florida: the Touchscreen counties roughly matched up to party registration numbers, but optically scanned paper ballot counties showed strangeness like one county where 69.3% registered democrat, but only 28% of them voted for Kerry.
Palm Beach County, Florida logged 88,000 more votes than there were voters;
that machines in LaPorte, Indiana discounted 50,000 voters;
in Columbus, Ohio voting machines gave Bush an extra 4,000 votes;
in Broward County, Florida voting machines were counting backwards;
Lastly,
precincts in New Mexico gave provisional ballots that will never be counted to as many as 10% of all their voters.
I guess the main question is whether or not these differences are enough to change the outcome. Even Kerry admitted those 150,000 provisional ballots wouldn't help.
:(
Of course a mere 150000 wouldn't help, not after 1000000 votes were probably rigged to go to the other side
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
Ok. As a physicist, I'd like you to show me how to perform an error-free measurement. You can claim the patent rights. I'd just like to see how you do it.
The owls are not what they seem
Yes, you can. Because Kerry conceded the race.
Given the fucking armada of legal action ALREADY WRITTEN and pending filing, it is safe to say that it was a legit victory in the minds of the Kerry camp.
Also, consider switching to decaf.
Democrats in denial continue to try and find anything they can lay their hot little hands on to destroy George W. Bush. All rumors, unsubstantiated gossip, and half-baked "truths" will be trumpted to the highest in the hopes that some of it, no matter how ludicrous or absurd, will somehow stick to the President.
One wonders just how much scrutiny the voting system would be under if Kerry had won. One further wonders if this story would've even made it to Slashdot had it been the Republicans complaining about voting irregularities.
Bush won. Kerry lost. Get over it and start planning the next election. Perhaps next time you'll pick a better candidate. I would've voted for Lieberman had you nominated him, but you chose a left-wing flip-flop instead.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Don't be stupid.
Even if Bush shut down all economic activity in the US and wiped out all CO2 producing machinery, it would have made exactly NO DIFFERENCE.
I can't believe you're blaming Bush for hurricanes now. That's just intellectually pathetic.
HE WON THE FUCKING ELECTION IN 2000, HOW MANY TIMES DOES THIS HAVE TO BE EXPLAINED??
Learn about the Electoral College. There is no provision for a national popular vote in the Constitution. The popular vote has NEVER elected a US President. We're lucky to *get* a popular vote.
You stupid fucks didn't have any problem whatsoever with the EC before 2000. Probably because you thought the popular vote meant a shit. WTF.
Hey, did you know that the EC has elected a president who lost the popular vote 2 or 3 times in the past? Yep, that's right. Bush wasn't the first.
yeah, that article says ~88k votes were not counted. Of those ~88k, ~1k were for Bush.
So not counting ~86k kerry votes is an error in favor of Bush.
durr.
Mike Moore is not a valid source...
Maybe he felt it just isn't worth arguing over anyway, since the Pro-Kerry fanatics won't accept dissenting opinion. I know if I was asked I'd probably say I voted for Kerry so I dont have to have cow blood thrown at me or something.
A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
Liberals ! Stand up and take it like a Mandate ! I think the vote margin in Ohio was 136,000 so 4000 really doesn't, well, you can subtract. As far as the Florida vote machine alien butt probe theory ; Registered Pubs and Debs are NOT indicative of final votes. But it does say in this particular case. Elitist idiot John Kerry dised the Jew vote, FYI: that is the population of Palm Beach, they historically vote dem, thus registered dem. And they voted Bush in droves partly because of the good campaigning by Ed Koch and partly because John Kerry is a , oh already mentioned the elitist idiot.
No, but then again, property taxes and zoning changes are handled at the state level. We cannot (and should not) expect Bush to be able to enforce tax breaks in each state without violating the state's rights.
The original poster was claiming that Bush was hurting the poor by not giving a tax break, but Bush can't give the poor a tax break because at the federal level, they are not being taxed. You cannot blame Bush (or any President, for that matter) for something that is completely out of their control. He did what he could. Its up to the states to do the rest.
I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!
Can you provide any proof for that lie?
That kind of condescending extremism is also part of why Bush won.
But remember, you still voted for a guy who illegally invaded a sovereign country on false pretenses
1. The invasion wasn't illegal. It was supported by previous U.N. resolutions stretching back over a decade. 2. It has been shown that Bush received information that was incorrect and based his decisions on that bad information. Hence the allegation that he invaded based on "false pretenses" is simply false. I'll accept "he invaded based on bad information", but even so it was fully legal and warranted under previous U.N. resolutions.
Worst of all, its impact on making Americans safer from terrorism has been completely negative, serving only to speed up the process of breeding new terror cells.
Do you have any evidence of that? I haven't seen a terrorist attack in the U.S. in 3 years. Sure, there's a problem with terrorists in Iraq but I'd rather the terrorists be busy there than in our country. Plus that is to be expected when you hit the hornet's nest.
So I might be arrogant, but at least I'm not short-sighted or confused.
Actually I think you're all three.
Oh, and I've been in the minority all my life and I'm quite happy, thank you. But it doesn't mean I'm not right.
Of course it doesn't mean you're not right, but if you find yourself in the minority over a great many years it is a strong indication that you very well may be wrong. The electorate is made up of both thinking and non-thinking individuals--but if we assume that there about as many sheep on each side of the political spectrum then we still come to the conclusion that the majority of thinking individuals voted for Bush.
You could be right but the longer you are in the minority the more statistically improbable that becomes.
See, women do have control over their own bodies-- they can choose to not have sex. Abortion as a method of birth control is murder. Abortion for rape/incest victims or those where the life of the mother is threatened, that's fine. But just getting abortions because "Oops, hehe, I got pregnant again!", that's BS.
I hear that goddamned slogan, "A Woman's Right To Choose" being thrown around in the media and I instantly do a replace on "Choose" with "Murder". Because when it comes down to it, it's really just "A Woman's Right To Murder".
As for--
Well, see, marriage is between a man and a woman, it's been like that for thousands of years. But more importantly, to me, is this: should marriage even be dictated by the government? I mean, seperation of church and state and all, you'd think that, at the government level, all marriage would be called civil unions, and it'd be up to a church, after the fact, to tell you you're married.
Now, if they did that (made all government "marriages" into "civil unions"), people could go get their "civil union license" (be it for a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman), then have the ceremony completed by a minister (or whatever) which could call it whatever he/she wanted to, but in the end, as far as the government was concerned, it'd be a "civil union". Because I can actually imagine someone coming up with a new religion that doesn't call it "marriage" and getting pissed that the government is force-feeding the term down peoples throats.
BTW: I wouldn't have any problem with removing "under God" from the pledge of allegiance either. Or getting rid of the "In God We Trust" bit from our currency. Seperation of church and state should be absolute.
Anyways.. I predict I'll be modded flamebait or, heh, get flamed, or a combination of both!
All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.