Remember back in 2000 when the Dems were crying
that the Popular vote should decide the Election?
Funny, but I don't hear them whining about that
this time around; oh, could that be because they lost
by almost 5,000,000 votes?
Tony
.
|
|
| User: "Barbarossa" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are Liberals not crying about the Popular vote? |
07 Nov 2004 10:30:29 AM |
|
|
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> schreef in bericht
news:20041107110052.21770.00000240@mb-m14.aol.com...
Remember back in 2000 when the Dems were crying
that the Popular vote should decide the Election?
Funny, but I don't hear them whining about that
this time around; oh, could that be because they lost
by almost 5,000,000 votes?
Nope, the people voted for Kerry, the votecounters appointed
Bush. Those machines are in the hands of reps.
I don't believe in computervoting. It can easily be hacked and
corrupted.
Please go back to paper ballots where committies containing
reps and dems are controling the outcome. That is the only
fair thing. The USA has made itself a slave of the media who
wants a quick counting. Why this rush for quick computer
countings while you will have a much more reliable outcome
when you vote by hand on paper ballots and manually count
by committies?
Because manually voting on paper ballots and manual counting
is not in the interest of the sitting elite.
Kind Regards,
Barbarossa
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are Liberals not crying about the Popular vote? |
07 Nov 2004 09:50:23 PM |
|
|
Barbarossa a écrit:
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> schreef in bericht
news:20041107110052.21770.00000240@mb-m14.aol.com...
Remember back in 2000 when the Dems were crying
that the Popular vote should decide the Election?
Funny, but I don't hear them whining about that
this time around; oh, could that be because they lost
by almost 5,000,000 votes?
Nope, the people voted for Kerry, the votecounters appointed
Bush. Those machines are in the hands of reps.
Take your pills barbara.
J.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Doctor Is In" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are Liberals not crying about the Popular vote? |
07 Nov 2004 10:51:08 AM |
|
|
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041107110052.21770.00000240@mb-m14.aol.com...
Remember back in 2000 when the Dems were crying
that the Popular vote should decide the Election?
Funny, but I don't hear them whining about that
this time around; oh, could that be because they lost
by almost 5,000,000 votes?
Tony
The percentage of Americans favoring a constitutional amendment to abolish
the electoral college is at 61% according to a new Gallup Poll.
In the Year 2000, Gore won the popular vote by 500,000 plus, yet Bush was
elected by a margin of 536 popular votes in the state of Florida, and
which the Supreme Court refused, on a split 5-4 vote, to recount for
verification of accuracy. So, Bush won Florida's electoral college and,
hence, the national election.
That's why, stupid, people didn't like the results, since over a
half-million votes didn't count to put Gore in office--the electoral vote
***** defeated the majority-win...which is NOT what a fair and just
democracy stands for.
And, according to this latest Gallup Poll, most Americans don't stand for
the unfairness of the electoral college.
In this election, bird brain, Bush has won both the electoral college and
popular vote, although he has gained power only by Kerry falling short by
about 136,000 popular votes in Ohio.
Had Kerry gotten those votes, he would've won the electoral college vote
in Ohio, and you'd have to slither off into another ID and disappear once
more....ROFL...
Doc ;p
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Binder Dundat" |
|
| Title: Rigged Vote |
07 Nov 2004 01:22:44 PM |
|
|
Source: Thom Hartmann, Commondreams.org
Election night, I'd been doing live election coverage for WDEV, one of the
radio stations that carries my syndicated show, and, just after midnight,
during the 12:20 a.m. Associated Press Radio News feed, I was startled to
hear the reporter detail how Karen Hughes had earlier sat George W. Bush
down to inform him that he'd lost the election. The exit polls were clear:
Kerry was winning in a landslide. "Bush took the news stoically," noted the
AP report.
But then the computers reported something different. In several pivotal
states.
Conservatives see a conspiracy here: They think the exit polls were rigged.
***** Morris, the infamous political consultant to the first Clinton campaign
who became a Republican consultant and Fox News regular, wrote an article
for The Hill, the publication read by every political junkie in Washington,
DC, in which he made a couple of brilliant points.
"Exit Polls are almost never wrong," Morris wrote. "They eliminate the two
major potential fallacies in survey research by correctly separating actual
voters from those who pretend they will cast ballots but never do and by
substituting actual observation for guesswork in judging the relative
turnout of different parts of the state."
He added: "So, according to ABC-TVs exit polls, for example, Kerry was
slated to carry Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and Iowa, all of
which Bush carried. The only swing state the network had going to Bush was
West Virginia, which the president won by 10 points."
Yet a few hours after the exit polls were showing a clear Kerry sweep, as
the computerized vote numbers began to come in from the various states the
election was called for Bush.
How could this happen?
On the CNBC-TV show "Topic A With Tina Brown," several months ago, Howard
Dean had filled in for Tina Brown as guest host. His guest was Bev Harris,
the Seattle grandmother who started www.blackboxvoting.org from her living
room. Bev pointed out that regardless of how votes were tabulated (other
than hand counts, only done in odd places like small towns in Vermont), the
real "counting" is done by computers. Be they Diebold Opti-Scan machines,
which read paper ballots filled in ny pencil or ink in the voter's hand, or
the scanners that read punch cards, or the machines that simply record a
touch of the screen, in all cases the final tally is sent to a "central
tabulator" machine.
That central tabulator computer is a Windows-based PC.
"In a voting system," Harris explained to Dean on national television, "you
have all the different voting machines at all the different polling places,
sometimes, as in a county like mine, there's a thousand polling places in a
single county. All those machines feed into the one machine so it can add up
all the votes. So, of course, if you were going to do something you
shouldn't to a voting machine, would it be more convenient to do it to each
of the 4000 machines, or just come in here and deal with all of them at
once?"
Dean nodded in rhetorical agreement, and Harris continued. "What surprises
people is that the central tabulator is just a PC, like what you and I use.
It's just a regular computer."
"So," Dean said, "anybody who can hack into a PC can hack into a central
tabulator?"
Harris nodded affirmation, and pointed out how Diebold uses a program called
GEMS, which fills the screen of the PC and effectively turns it into the
central tabulator system. "This is the official program that the County
Supervisor sees," she said, pointing to a PC that was sitting between them
loaded with Diebold's software.
Bev then had Dean open the GEMS program to see the results of a test
election. They went to the screen titled "Election Summary Report" and
waited a moment while the PC "adds up all the votes from all the various
precincts," and then saw that in this faux election Howard Dean had 1,000
votes, Lex Luthor had 500, and Tiger Woods had none. Dean was winning.
"Of course, you can't tamper with this software," Harris noted. Diebold
wrote a pretty good program.
But, it's running on a Windows PC.
So Harris had Dean close the Diebold GEMS software, go back to the normal
Windows PC desktop, click on the "My Computer" icon, choose "Local Disk C:,"
open the folder titled GEMS, and open the sub-folder "LocalDB" which, Harris
noted, "Stands for local database, that's where they keep the votes." Harris
then had Dean double-click on a file in that folder titled "Central
Tabulator Votes," which caused the PC to open the vote count in a database
program like Excel.
In the "Sum of the Candidates" row of numbers, she found that in one
precinct Dean had received 800 votes and Lex Luthor had gotten 400.
"Let's just flip those," Harris said, as Dean cut and pasted the numbers
from one cell into the other. "And," she added magnanimously, "Let's give
100 votes to Tiger."
They closed the database, went back into the official GEMS software "the
legitimate way, you're the county supervisor and you're checking on the
progress of your election."
As the screen displayed the official voter tabulation, Harris said, "And you
can see now that Howard Dean has only 500 votes, Lex Luthor has 900, and
Tiger Woods has 100." Dean, the winner, was now the loser.
Harris sat up a bit straighter, smiled, and said, "We just edited an
election, and it took us 90 seconds."
On live national television. (You can see the clip on www.votergate.tv) And
they had left no tracks whatsoever, Harris said, noting that it would be
nearly impossible for the election software -- or a County election
official -- to know that the vote database had been altered.
Which brings us back to Morris and those pesky exit polls that had Karen
Hughes telling George W. Bush that he'd lost the election in a landslide.
Morris's conspiracy theory is that the exit polls "were sabotaged" to cause
people in the western states to not bother voting for Bush, since, the
networks would call the election based on the exit polls for Kerry. But the
networks didn't do that, and had never intended to,
According to congressional candidate Fisher, it makes far more sense that
exit polls were right - they weren't done on Diebold PCs - and that the vote
itself was hacked.
And not only for the presidential candidate - Jeff Fisher thinks this hit
him and pretty much every other Democratic candidate for national office in
the most-hacked swing states.
So far, the only national "mainstream" media to come close to this story was
Keith Olbermann on his show Friday night, November 5th, when he noted that
it was curious that all the voting machine irregularities so far uncovered
seem to favor Bush. In the meantime, the Washington Post and other media are
now going through single-bullet-theory-like contortions to explain how exit
polls had failed.
But I agree with Fox's ***** Morris on this one, at least in large part.
Wrapping up his story for The Hill, Morris wrote in his final paragraph,
"This was no mere mistake. exit polls cannot be as wrong across the board as
they were on election night. I suspect foul play."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are Liberals not crying about the Popular vote? |
07 Nov 2004 09:18:44 PM |
|
|
TonyZ2001 a écrit:
Remember back in 2000 when the Dems were crying
that the Popular vote should decide the Election?
Funny, but I don't hear them whining about that
this time around; oh, could that be because they lost
by almost 5,000,000 votes?
Tony
Two third of the whole population of Quebec majority...
Impressive...
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Doctor Is In" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are Liberals not crying about the Popular vote? |
07 Nov 2004 11:46:15 PM |
|
|
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:oABjd.2571534$yk.408264@news.easynews.com...
TonyZ2001 a écrit:
Remember back in 2000 when the Dems were crying
that the Popular vote should decide the Election?
Funny, but I don't hear them whining about that
this time around; oh, could that be because they lost
by almost 5,000,000 votes?
Tony
Two third of the whole population of Quebec majority...
Impressive...
J.
Not so impressive when you realize that 3.5 million votes (as currently
tabulated--not "almost 5,000,000, 59.42 Bush and 55.9 million for
Kerry)--is much less than 20% of the population of California. You wanna'
get silly about this? Okay...I'll play along, but....at least...
do the math please. That's just a 3% margin of the electorate for W.
Hardly a powerful mandate, and certainly no big win or landslide. Reality
hurts, I know...but you can easily check your figures before you flap you
jaws. Or, do you like spreading more lies even after you get your Psycho
Prez in again? Why bother now? Might as well rejoice and start telling the
truth for a damn refreshing change.
Doc ;p
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are Liberals not crying about the Popular vote? |
08 Nov 2004 02:00:13 AM |
|
|
The biggest one first since 1988 to go over the 50%, and by what a
margin!!! Much bigger mandate than Clinton in final analysis. Gee. What
a surprise.
Political capital, that Bush will spend as he sees fit... LOL
Eat your heart out!
J.
The Doctor Is In a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:oABjd.2571534$yk.408264@news.easynews.com...
TonyZ2001 a écrit:
Remember back in 2000 when the Dems were crying
that the Popular vote should decide the Election?
Funny, but I don't hear them whining about that
this time around; oh, could that be because they lost
by almost 5,000,000 votes?
Tony
Two third of the whole population of Quebec majority...
Impressive...
J.
Not so impressive when you realize that 3.5 million votes (as currently
tabulated--not "almost 5,000,000, 59.42 Bush and 55.9 million for
Kerry)--is much less than 20% of the population of California. You wanna'
get silly about this? Okay...I'll play along, but....at least...
do the math please. That's just a 3% margin of the electorate for W.
Hardly a powerful mandate, and certainly no big win or landslide. Reality
hurts, I know...but you can easily check your figures before you flap you
jaws. Or, do you like spreading more lies even after you get your Psycho
Prez in again? Why bother now? Might as well rejoice and start telling the
truth for a damn refreshing change.
Doc ;p
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
