Slashdot Mirror
Greens and Libertarians Team Up to Demand Recount
cyberformer writes "The Ohio election rules state that any losing candidate can demand a manual recount. Today, David Cobb and Michael Badnarik, the predidential candidates for the Green and Libertarian parties, announced that they are joining forces to do just that. A manual recount is important because it will include every ballot cast, whereas the first count only includes ballots that can be read by machine. It could even tip the state (and thus the election) from Bush to Kerry."
Funny, I didn't think the first count was done yet.
They want $110,000 in donations to pay the required fees. Looks like $10 per precinct.
What would happen if it turned out Kerry won? Would Bush be forced to concede the election to Kerry?
stop running for president, and help the Democratic campaign.
Why? I would never have voted for Kerry. I might have voted for Badnarik (too young to be eligible). The Democratic philosophy is as different from the Libertarian one as it is from the Republican -- so much so that I find myself more or less half-libertarian and half-Republican, but nowhere near Democratic.
You may as well say they should help the Republican campaign; the two seem to me ideologically closer, Bush himself notwithstanding.
Ohio doesn't use electronic voting. Over 70% of the state [including Cleveland, where I live and voted] still use the old "hanging chad" ballots.
The only regions that use the electronic voting machines are the wealthy republican suburban areas. Therefore any recount will help Kerry. Whether it will help enough is anyone's guess.
I've been listening to Air America lately - and mostly what I hear is disgruntled people not wanting to believe that Bush won. The conspiracy theories out there are amazing!
So what happens if the FIRST recount doesn't make Mr. Kerry President? Do we ask for ANOTHER recount ala 2000? 100K votes ain't that close folks!
Have you compiled your kernel today??
I heard this story on NPR - it was just on All Things Considered tonight, so npr.org doesn't have the link up yet. At the end, they commented that the Libertarian and Green party is currently raising the ~$130,000 needed for the recount.
Where can i donate?
Kerry got ~45,000 vites on our Slashdot poll. If i can PayPal $5 or do a $5 credit card donation, how many other people would?
There are 01 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary, and me.
I think it's just a PR stunt, something the Libertarians have always been good at.
Apparently they aren't very good at PR or maybe they'd have a better showing in the elections.
Independent Ralph Nader is also asking for a recount in Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire, and North Carolina. Kerry won NH, Bush won the rest. Polls had Kerry ahead by 10%, but he won only by 1%. I'd like to see a recount too, because we use those optical scan ballots that have been in controversy lately.
Personally, and interfering as one who isn't a US citizen and so has no right interfering in another country's affairs - ah but perhaps the current (sadly for another 4 years) US administration might like to respect that as well -, anyway. I reckon because a) this is so very important for the World and the American people and b) Bush and his cronies are basically a bunch of crooks, and now war criminals, that it should be essential to do a proper, manual recount of all votes cast and to have an investigation of all discrepencies (whoops we missed of a whole bunch of poor black people, never mind) before officially declaring a winner. At least that way the United States can demonstrate to the rest of the World that it is prepared to affirm it's democracy that it so willingly seems to be prepared to tout about and impose on others, heck if India can do it, so can the US.
Agreed. Moreover, I've been hearing too many theories about how voters were forced, deceived or generally brainwashed into voting for Bush. I've heard similar gripes about 'stupid' vs. 'smart', and of course seen the standard IQ by state chart.
Guess what, kids: sometimes in a democracy, other people win. This is what most of the American voters wanted, and that's the way it works.
Disclaimer: Kerry voter.
Don't give up hope yet. Go Libertarians!!
A Multiplayer Strategy Game for Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux
Here. And please do, it's worth every penny, even if just to confirm the ability / inability of the machines.
The ______ Agenda
The New Hampshire recount will really be the most interesting one. They used the Diebold machines, there was a large difference in the exit polls & the actual votes, and Kerry already won it (so right-wingers won't object to it on partisan grounds). Moderates and all concerned about evoting should watch that state closely. Partisans should also watch it, as it could be the first domino for the states where the outcome may actually change things. If anyone contests the New Hampshire recount, quietly chuckle that they don't care about voting & just care about their man. Kerry fans might protest because he did win & Bush fans might object in anticipation of those other states.
because like I said before the ballots that have the highest fault rate are in highly democratic areas. The repulbican areas have ballots with lower margins of error / no paper trails and therefore recounts there would have less of an impact. PS - Great Grandparent post is just wrong - Ohio uses punch card ballots for the most part. Whomever modded it "informative" needs to check thier facts first next time.
Face it, BUSH WON.
And I am thankful.
You may not like it
but I do.
changing ohio STILL won't win it for Kerry.
Good.
I however would like to know that the votes were counted right. I like Bush being in office, but fair voting is more important than which politician holds the office.
It's not just rabid Kerryists that want the recounts, and acting like a rabid Bushist doesn't help your argument any. The point here is not who won, but how fairly.
Areas with E-Voting count all the votes.
Areas that still vote with the old machines lose something around two percent of the votes to the machine not understanding "hanging chads" and other problems. A manual recount generally counts many of the machine rejected votes.
So, assuming the e-voting districts were bush districts, and the machine voting districts are Kerry districts, Kerry has more to gain from a recount.
Should the votes be recounted because the Libertarians or Greens think they may win? No.
Should the votes be recounted because Kerry may have won, and not Bush? Er, I doubt it, but maybe.
Should the votes be recounted as a check on how well the new computerized systems tallied the votes? Definitely.
The Greens might, but the Libertarians don't.
Democrats and Libertarians are very very different when it comes to economic policy.
most libertarian and green voters lean closer to the dems
That's why there are separate parties: so D-like libertarians like a lot of Slashdot and R-like libertarians like myself can have a party that's a lot closer to our common beliefs instead of being shuffled off into the Democratic and Republican parties. The libertarian philosophy is not part of the linear left/right spectrum (that incidentally dates from the French Revolution, where there were about 3 major ideological factions, and the third was centrist).
Besides, I didn't consider Kerry that good a candidate, even if I did agree with the Democratic platform. Given the choice between Kerry and Badnarik, I would've undoubtedly chosen Badnarik. There's enough difference in philosophy that allows me to agree with the latter but not the former. I don't think it's fair for them to endorse Kerry.
On the other hand, I do agree that the third parties should concentrate first on local elections, where parties matter less and it's easier to find an independent (or barely partisan) candidate who fits the third-party ideology better; yet they should keep running some presidential candidate to keep their representation up.
Um, changing Ohio WOULD be enough electoral votes for Kerry to win it over Bush. You sound like a Bush supporter, so it's no wonder you have no understanding of Politics or fancy numbers.
I know more than you drink.
Well, this may be the way you feel, but most libertarian and green voters lean closer to the dems.
I watched an interview of a British MP the other night, whose was a 'left-libertarian'. This was considered to be somewhat of a contradiction apparently. However, the world's smallest political quiz puts libertarianism diametrically opposite statism, on a different axis from conservatism-liberalism.
I always thought that libertarianism was about individual freedoms, and not so much economic policy? Couldn't a libertarian quite legitimately have left- OR right- leanings in terms of economic policy, without compromising their libertarianism? (Note that I'm talking about what they believe in, not who would be more prudent to vote for given both those beliefs and present circumstance)
Well, if you think libertarians like Bush, then you're beyond all reason.
Regardless, neither party is doing this to help Kerry. They're doing it because many of us don't have a lot of faith in the election "system" in the United States. If this helps improve the process, it's worth a thousand times what they're spending to do it.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Libertarianism is a political philosophy which advocates individual rights and a limited government. Libertarians believe that individuals should be free to do anything they want, so long as they do not infringe upon what they believe to be the equal rights of others. In this respect they agree with many other modern political ideologies. The difference arises from the definition of "rights". For libertarians, there are no material "positive rights" (such as to food, shelter, or health care), only "negative rights" (such as to not be assaulted, abused or robbed). Libertarians further believe that the only legitimate use of force, whether public or private, is to protect these rights.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
He's smart enough to not want the Democratic Party to look like a bunch of sore losers two elections in a row.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
It could also be related to maintaining ballot status, which exempts a party from needing to collect massive numbers of signatures if they got X% in the previous election.
And you are the reason the democrats weren't able to win. Calling the otherside stupid isn't the best way to sway their opinion.
A quick search of Google News and a couple other websites revealed that this isn't being given all that much importance. It's probably because A.) Kerry doesn't have much of a change of winning in Ohio and B.) The major media outlets don't care about third parties.
That said, I agree with the many who said this is a worthwhile endeavor to see how well elections proceeded this time around.
They're not paying for it yet - they're "raising funds" to pay the large fee for it.
Personally - I can only think that we've got two political parties still "unencumbered" by incumbent political games and still able to actually act out of principle (egad, that's a FAR less cynical statement than usually comes from me on political matters...). It's all I can figure - there's obviously no chance that the recount will show the Greens or Libertarians winning the election, and in fact I honestly suspect the vote recount won't change the final result, but I do think it's important to get an accurate accounting of the votes. In so doing, we'll also get a good picture of how innacurate the initial count was. If it's way off, even assuming the recount still shows Bush winning, we'll have proof that there is something wrong with the voting procedures, and probably some idea of WHAT is wrong. And then, next time around, there's a chance there'll be fewer problems...
Besides, bear in mind that while the Democrats can't reasonably make this demand or formally donate money to the effort without being accused of being big babies and spreading political FUD about the vote in Ohio...but INDIVIDUAL Democrats ought to be able to easily donate to the cause. Maybe somebody should call that rich Soros guy.
And, yes, I DID vote for Michael Badnarik in this election...
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
From here.
I suspect that the DNC is doing their part to contribute to the re-count fund. Hell, if they emailed their base with nothing more than the news--not even asking for donations, they'd probably get enough folks to contribute to the fund that the GL consortium would have enough cash on hand to demand re-counts in as many states as they'd like.
Karma
> It could even tip the state (and thus the election) from Bush to Kerry.
Statistically, no, it couldn't. In fantasy fiction, it could, but in real life,
with Bush leading by over a hundred thousand votes, it ain't gonna happen. For
Gore in Florida in 2000, trailing by about a thousand votes, the recount was a
bit of a longshot, although it was not beyond the realm of possibility that it
could, against the odds, pan out -- but here, the margin is plainly way too
large. (Kerry knew this, presumably, which is why he conceded.) Do all the
recounts you want. Recount from now till inauguration day if you like -- but
don't hold your breath waiting for any big announcements reversing the outcome.
130 thousand votes is close, yes, but it's not so razor thin that a recount
has any realistic chance to alter the outcome. The counting process just
isn't as sloppy as that. (Yes, there are ballots that weren't counted, but
statistically they aren't going to deviate as wildly as all that from the
rest. Even if 100% of them are valid and countable, and even if there are
250 thousand of them outstanding (the highest, most optimistic estimates for
the Dems; the Blackwell figure of 175 thousand is probably much closer), and,
indeed, even if Kerry gets a wildly unlikely 70% of those 250 thousand (in
Ohio, where it is very unlikely for either party to top 60%), Bush would
still have a comfortable enough margin of victory to be confident of the
outcome of any recount (at least, any recount observed by representatives
from both parties).)
I'm all for the hand recounts. They will verify what we already know.
(What we do not know is what would have happened if it hadn't rained all day
statewide. There are always unknowns in life.)
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
The only logical reason I can see for this move is to retain ballot access (eg. they're very close to the number of votes needed to stay on the ballot for next election). But I see no mention of this anywhere. So I don't believe it's true.
There's no way in hell I'm contributing to this. Badnarik was my candidate, but any donations now do absolutely NOTHING to help any Libertarian candidate or cause. I don't even care if they're right or wrong in their suspicion, because even if hell did freeze over and they were proven right, it still doesn't help any Libertarian candidate or cause.
It's like a dog shitting on your lawn. In many jurisdictions you can take the dog owner to court. But why spend $110,000 to sue the owner of a shitting dog? It's a waste!
Let me be perfectly clear here. I did not vote for Kerry, I voted for Badnarik. If I wanted Kerry to win I would have voted for him. It doesn't matter to me if Bush wins over Kerry or Kerry wins over Bush, I lose either way.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Greens, yes. Libertarians, no. Libertarians until recently always seemed to lean mildly "Republican" (if you must compare them with "The Two Parties"). Being for less government influence, political authority being devolved down towards State (and smaller) levels from the Federal level, non-interference in free commerce, and so on.
The only reason they may seem more Democrat this time around is that Bush, quite frankly, seems to be pushing the aspects of Republicanism that Libertarians disagree with (speech-restricting "Campaign Finance Reform", "Foreign Entanglements", attempts to amend the constitution for things like allowing congress to criminalize "desecration of the flag" and "banning gay marriage", restricting civil liberties (e.g. the "PATRIOT" act) in the name of "security" and "patriotism"...) while slacking badly on most of the issues Libertarians tend to agree with (reducing the size and power of the Federal government, fiscally responsible government policies, etc.).
Typically, on social freedoms, Libertarians lean slightly "Democrat" - except that Democrats are more likely to want to use government force to "require" social freedoms (i.e. through legislation -as an example, perhaps a hypothetical federal law requiring all states to recognize any other state's legal marriage contracts, including "gay" ones if the state where it was issued allows it), where Libertarians tend to prefer non-coercive approaches (i.e. it's none of the Federal government's business at all WHAT kind of social arrangement adults give informed consent to enter into...). . Any power not explicitly granted to the Federal government by the Constitution belongs to the states or the people...
Or at least that's my (simplistically-stated) understanding of the political philosophy, anyway.
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
...in the form of a flash animation may be found on newgrounds.com here...
Obviously in the real world, practical matters soften the idealistic concepts in the animation, but it gives you a good idea of the direction that Libertarian political philosophy takes.
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Yeah, and let's all be good little Neo-Con ditto-heads and only believe what they tell us instead of using our Constitutionally granted rights to question everything the Government does.
"Mandate My Ass" will be a great rally-cry for the next four years. The 'Pubs are already hot to inform everyone, ad nasuem, that Bush had the largest number of ballots cast for him in any Presidential election. But, you know who the person with the second largest number of ballots cast for him is? Kerry. That means that Bush had the largest number of votes cast *against* him in any presidential election in US history.
His margin of victory is the smallest in a US Presidential election since Wilson beat Taft in 1913.
"Mandate My Ass" and who gives a flying $#@! about who thinks who won. We need the recount just because we can do it.
Libritarians ally themselves with Republicans on in the sence that there are still many Paleo-cons out there. Bush is anything but a Paleocon, he is a neocon. Lets look.
Libritarians hate anything that has to do with making the government bigger. Well lets look, the largest deficit(number not % of GDP, but still huge) in history.
Libritarians are generally about liberty and human(negitive) rights. Bush and his new appointment to Attorny General think human rights are up for discussion(ala Gitmo, Abu Grab). The Patiot Act certianly doesn't make us libritarians happy campers.
Lets see, faith based inititives, i.e funding churches do create social programs, which is no better then when the government does it.
Heck in his 2003 budget, he proposed and increase in NEA funding, which is a hot button issue for palocons and libritarians.
Libritarians see the purpose of the Military for defence, not nation building or premtive/preventive war. Even Bush said in 2000 that he didn't believe in nation building.
Ultimately the only thing that Bush has done right by libritarians is cutting taxes, but all the other stuff he has done soooo out weighs that.
I have been a libritarian for as long as I have been interested in politics. I supported and worked for campains in 1994 to put the conservatives in control of the house and senate. Heck I even voted for Bush the first time around. The fact of the matter for me is, Bush's performance has been anything but remotely close to "libritarian" ideals. This year I voted for Kerry, because at least with Kerry we would have dead lock, and if 1994-2000 is any measure, it was the only chance to stall the growth of government.
Shameless self promotion : The Misadvetures of the in
Who needs math when you've got Jesus?
If the recount goes kerry's way (and I doubt they'll find 130K votes) he will be the president, Ill have no complaints about it (I voted 3rd Party). What I will love to see is the left embrace their guy and ignore the partisan crap they have been spewing for four years..
Remember the ill-famed John Titor story. It said things would get ugly with "civil unrest" after the 2004 US election. Well, what would happen if, by some reason, the recounts come back wildly different - or even declaring Kerry winner of the elections?
I'm bored, and that site is a fascinating read. It's like watching a trainwreck, you know you're not supposed to enjoy it but just can't look away.
Real libertarians want the government to get out of the institute of marriage.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
(Please note I didn't call all Republican voters idiots, just ones who voted for them because they promised to (and did) lower taxes. Lowering taxes and raising spending is worse than raising taxes and raising spending.)
You are correct, the Republican party has managed to get as far away as possible from the Libertarian party, very very recently. Which is, of course, why the LP is asking for a recount of Ohio...they disagree with Kerry on 50% of his platform, but they disagree nearly completely with Bush.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
At a bit less than 40% of the precincts reporting in Ohio, I saw David Cobb's votes go from around 10,000 down to ZERO. After that, I started taking screenshots of the Ohio state departments website.
you can see a few of them here: http://64.71.168.78/
Was Cobb a write-in in Ohio? Maybe that explains it. The ohio state department's website still only shows Cobb with 24 votes
-metric
The whole stolen election thing isn't with regards to winning or losing the popular vote. It's the opinion that Bush one Florida in 2000 on Fraud.
So long as there is the appearance of impropriaty, thats all you'll get. Same goes of Kerry, except it wasn't people close to Kerry disenfranchising the voters of Ohio and it wasn't people close to Gore disenfranchising the voters of Florida.
Realities just a bunch of bits.
I believe in smaller government, less taxes, less intervention in people's lives (at home and abroad) by the government.
Republicans have shown themselves to be the opposite of that.
One theory is that the Republicans are trying to reduce the entitlement programs (like Medicare) by growing them (and other government spending) in an uncontrollable fashion while cutting taxes, to the point where force cutbacks across the board become mandatory. I doubt that it is intentional. I think that the Republicans are just incompetent fiscal managers.
JOIN US FOR PONG!
When has Bush ever been held responsible? When has he ever admitted to a mistake? Was he held responsible for ignoring warnings about Osama bin Laden being determined to strike inside the United States? Was he held accountable for not planning the occupation of Iraq? Has he been held accountable for the massive deficit caused by his tax cuts? Has he been held accountable for the massive cockup of Falluja (when we first went in)? Quite the contrary, he's actually managed to capitalize on these errors.
Maybe I'm completely wrong about Bush being bad for the nation... all I can say is, check back in a few years, and if he's fucked up completely (like he's done the first four years) don't say we didn't warn you.
I'm not sure it matters anymore. The problem is, democracy depends on an informed public making decisions, but the public isn't informed, and doesn't want to be informed.
Bush may have neoconservatives on his staff, but he is not a neoconservative. He's a social conservative who spends like a Democrat (a Democrat in Republican's clothing?).
Bush was never a neoconservative. It's my belief that after September 11th, he pulled a Kennedy and said (something along the lines of) no idea should be left off the table, and the worst thing that we can do here is nothing. (I suppose that he also took a page from Jimmy Carter's failure in the hostage crisis on the dosomethingism ideal). I can't say that I agree with his decision to listen to the neoconservatives, but I seriously do not believe that he's a neoconservative. Neocons don't care much about a conservative social policy like he does. Neocon's are like libertarians who don't care about domestic policy (well, as long as the policy is good for business and the economy) and also believe in preemptive wars, as opposed to Nixon's foreign policy which revolved around diplomacy.
-Turkey
And you are the reason the democrats weren't able to win. Calling the otherside stupid isn't the best way to sway their opinion.
Because it's not like anybody on the right-wing ever calls us stupid or cowards or anything like that. Oh wait....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
You're already bitching about Gonzales? He's not even a conservative! Let's just be honest. You would complain if Bush appointed Papa Fucking Smurf to AG.
Not everything is about "social issues".
Gonzales is a social liberal. But he wrote memos authorizing torture.
Not exactly Papa Fucking Smurf.
And don't worry, after this election, the Catholics are definitely not on their way to any camp. Most of them voted the right way.
The margian really wasn't that big. 47% of Catholics voted for Kerry.
I think the rumours alone warrant a recount. If only just to disprove them. The fact that nobody seems to be interested in disproving what are very serious allegations is more worrysome then any outcome of the election.
Jilles
What would happen if it turned out Kerry won?
Suddenly, the Democratic support for abolishing the electoral college, which, in the 2000 election permitted Bush to win despite Gore carrying a majority of the popular vote, would vanish in a puff of smoke.
And it would be the Republicans complaining because a mere 60,000 vote switch in Ohio gave Kerry the presidency through the electoral college system despite Bush having won the popular vote by over 3 million.
It would be hilarious to watch as strident principled Democrats fell silent while the vocal Republicans would begin attacking positions that they themselves previously held onto with great fervor.
As if the whole thing weren't farcical enough already.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
sorry the blog lists her as columnist worth reading. I think I lost a kidney processing the shock (ok so it wasn't really a surprise) of that one.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
And Congress did declare war.
Uh, no, they didn't declare war. They gave the President the authority to use force, but stopped short of a true Declaration of War- the likes of which we have not seen since WWII
If Congress had declared war, by international treaty our soldiers would be facing international war crimes tribunals rather than simple court martials for Abu Gharib and the like- and such international tribunals would not stop with low-ranking soldiers, but travel up the chain of command to Bush himself. Do your really want that?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Besides, changing ohio STILL won't win it for Kerry.
According to the final tallies at http://www.electoral-vote.com/, Kerry currently has 252 EVs, Bush 286. Flip Ohio's 20 votes- and Kerry has 272 Evs to Bush's 266. Thus Kerry will win. So sorry- you're wrong- changing Ohio WOULD win it for Kerry. Of course, the FIRST count in Ohio isn't done yet (absentee and provisional ballots legally will be able to be counted tomorrow), so we'll have more data then.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
If Congress had declared war, by international treaty our soldiers would be facing international war crimes tribunals rather than simple court martials for Abu Gharib and the like- and such international tribunals would not stop with low-ranking soldiers, but travel up the chain of command to Bush himself. Do your really want that?
If soldiers and commanders committed war crimes, why wouldn't we want that? Would we not want it to happen just because it's "our guys"?
Fine. Re-count Ohio. It won't change anything. While we're at it, why don't we recount Pennsylvania, whose vote count was actually closer than Ohio? Or Wisconsin, which was even closer?
Oh, that's right. We only want to recount states that may cause Kerry to win.
Is it really every vote that we want counted, or is it just every vote in certain states?
Ohio: Bush by 136,483 votes, 2.5%
Pennsylvania: Kerry by 128,869 votes, 2.3%
Wisconsin: Kerry by 11,813 votes, 0.4%
Do not read this sig.
Join me in the hills, democratic brothers! Any freedom fighter who dies in the glorious fight to liberate our country goes straight to Democratic Heaven, where nubile, liberal virgins await!
The Internet is abuzz with speculation that there were so many voting irregularities this election that President Bush may not have won after all.
... I get why people are frustrated, but [Republicans] did not steal this election. There were a few problems here and there in the election. But unlike 2000, there is no doubt that they actually got more votes than we did, and they got them in the states that mattered."
c t. html
But the man who headed the Democrats' team of 3,600 attorneys, spread across the country to address irregularities, says, "that ain't the case." Kerry adviser Jack Corrigan, quoted by the Boston Globe, says, "No one would be more interested than me in finding out that we really won
Other Kerry campaign officials agree.
--------
You can find that quote in a number of news sources now. That blurb is from FoxNews.com but you can also find it here:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/11/11/news/ele
He Lost, MoveOn.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
And then there's the situation with the provisional ballots.
See Just count the ballots at the back of the bus.
Correction Bush had more people vote against him than any other sitting President. Clinton was not a sitting President in 1992.
The irony is that one of the biggest voting groups for Bush is the lower middle class. Most of these people are either not college-educated, possess a two-year degree, or work in a trade. These people are the primary victims of Bush's tax cut bonanza and his lack of concern for outsourcing.
If God didn't make them do this to themselves, then what should we call them?
I was curious to know if non-Americans can donate as well. As for all of us who're not in the US, we feel that mankind as a whole stands to pay the price for Bush's reelection.
-- rxMx --
Love all, Trust few, Follow one.
I was genuinely wondering if there's a way for the e-voting machine manufacturers to reveal the exact code that was used on the physical voting machines. This could put to sleep quite a bit of the often-unpleasant debating going around all over the world (apart from /., of course).
-- rxMx --
Love all, Trust few, Follow one.