Please stop saying "Bush Won" or "Kerry Really Won". The

[Laura PourMeADrink]

biggest tactical error, IMO, of yesterday was our side saying that Bush won. We shouldn't say Kerry really won either.

The thing that makes disenfranchisement so effective is that you can not measure it. You can not possibly count all the people, from across the country, who waited and then went home, waited and then went to work, voted at the wrong precinct, got that flyer that the election was Nov 3rd, registered to avail, punched Kerry and got Bush, etc. etc. And you don't REALLY know who they they would have voted for anyway.

What all of them yesterday should have said was, "Because of the evidence of massive disenfranchisment that Representative Conyers has only begun to amass as well as problems with the voting machines, WE HAVE NO IDEA WHO REALLY WON."

This has worked much better with Republicans I talk to because it doesn't put them on the defensive when you say their guy didn't really win and they don't roll their eyes when you say Kerry really won and you don't have to lie and say Bush really won.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

1. You make a good point,

but I think if we challenge an election, based on pure speculation (unless there is iron-clad proof of fraud) seems wrong. As far as the numbers are now, it seems that Bush did win. A lot of arguments about long lines, flawed machines, and the like, make a damn good case for authentic election reform (unlike the bullshit empty promises we got in 2000), but it doesn't prove fraud. Unless there is proof, we must move on.

Flame away.

[ROC]

2. I agree LWM

Lines and misallocation of machines don't automatically mean fraud.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

3. But this approach doesn't even mention fraud. It is non-accusatory

and focuses on the people who didn't get to vote. There is evidence of people not voting, affidavits, videos, first hand accounts, etc. It is an unknown number and thus it makes the outcome unknown.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

4. Can you prove the official vote tally is false,

because of the irregularities? Do these irregularities affect Bush's lead, or are you saying the number of people disenfranchised is large enough to doubt the integrity of the electoral system? The first point needs to be proven, and the second, as I've said, makes a case for serious election reform. There were problems in a lot of states, but you can't throw out the election, without proof of serious error. This isn't 2000. The non-accusatory tone is great, but you still have a burden of proof to meet.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

5. You are missing the point completely. But too tired to repeat

myself again

[BeFree]

7. Bullsh*t

No one is saying "..throw out the election" anymore. What we are saying is that enough evidence exists to call into question "Who really won the election? No one can really tell. The results have to be taken on faith"

Faith. What is being said is: We do not have faith in the election process. That there exists enough evidence to question a great many aspects, and since the answers remain a mystery, and the holders of those answers won't respond, there is damn good reason to have lost faith in the process.

Or maybe you do believe? That is the question. No one with a clue can still have complete faith, eh?

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

30. I'm just calling it as I see it, as far as the vote count goes.

Like I said, it sucks. Are you trying to actually change the election, or are you trying to simply make a statement? If its the second, I agree 150 percent, and hopefully this will fuel to fire of real reform. If its the first, then you'll need proof.

[euler]

24. Many DUer's still don't understand that there are...

...other POSSIBLE explanations for many things that are automatically assumed to be fraud. There is no way a president can be brought down in this country, with the laws we have, unless other possible explanations are ruled out. I never saw a single person here even acknowledge that there are other possible explanations, much less attempt to rule them out.

It was rare to even meet someone here that attempted to get to the facts of the matter. For example, it is assumed Blackwell was responsible for allocating machines to each county. This is simply false. The facts of this particular matter are simply not in dispute - this is a county level decision. Period.

It's all quite frustrating.

[Pirate Smile]

6. Good point. Good framing of the issue. I think the most easily proven

of the many problems is the voter suppression.

A vote never cast can never be counted so the machines we use to vote on and how the votes are tabulated does not include a huge part of the problem.

This point may be broader then "who won" because it deals with who people wanted but may have never got the chance to vote for.

[BeFree]

8. Wrong, Ms. Smile

A vote never cast can never be counted so the machines we use to vote on and how the votes are tabulated does not include a huge part of the problem.

A vote cast on a machine, or even a paper ballot counted by a machine, raise serious doubts as too the veracity of the result.

The machines are the biggest, central problem. Suppression is a minor, local problem. Do you need further proof of my assertions? I can point you to many a website detailing the problems with machines.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

9. I don't think we were trying to say that the machines weren't the

problem at all. It was just a thought on an angle to communicate that was not combative or accusatory. Sure, we all know there are serious machine issues. Suppression, though, IMO, was orchestrated on a higher level than "local"

[BeFree]

10. Read it again, for the first time, Laura

The poster said machines were not a problem, and I say they are the main problem.

Also: This "higher level" of which you speak, are you saying that votes were suppressed from a state level across the nation?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

11. Honey, you read it again :.) I think she said, that the people

uncounted through the on-the-street disenfranchisement should be added to the ones lost through machine problems. Hell, I don't know what the hell she meant.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

13. Re: Higher Level -- No, I think that they sat down and mapped

out where they were going to intimidate voters. The reason why it was so prevalent in Ohio was because they have paper trails, right? So they handpicked the large, minority precincts and let the goons loose. Probably just put the word out and let the locals come up with their own schemes.

I totally agree with you, and I hope others don't give up. I would bet my life on the fact that the machines were rigged. I have read too many posts, seen too many anomolies, to believe it has happenstance. We just have to find the patterns and then figure out how they did it.

I was daydreaming about writing a book about all of this. And in the back, I would put a cd with a download of all the voting precinct data. Then I would challenge anyone out there, statisticians, students, etc. to find the pattern and give them a percentage of the royalties.

[Pirate Smile]

12. Wrong, BeFree. They are both part of the problem.

I think we should deal with all sides of the issue.

The most easily proven to people not completely involved in this issue is the suppression. Those problems can be used to pressure people into reform which includes the machines, of course.

Some (naive) people just don't think people would mess with the machines. But if you show the nasty plots and machinations that people go through to keep people from voting, it makes it much easier to believe they would screw with the machines.

I can picture the ads we could run showing the disgraces that occurred on, before and after election day. We are going to have to do that to get the Congress, state houses and the public (for referendums and ballot initiatives) to move on this issue.

edit to add - I did NOT say they were NOT part of the problem. I just said they don't include a big part of the problem. Geez, there are so many friggin problems, I didn't know it was a competition. Why don't you focus on the machines and others could focus on other issues - there are plenty to go around.

edit to add II - why do you try to be so hostile and insulting? It is sooo productive. You are talking to people that generally agree with you so what the hell is your problem?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

16. exactly !!!! I was thinking the same thing. Remember that tv

commercial for Coke. Christmas and hundreds holding candles. You could do that and caption, This is precinct XYZ. These 10,000 voters said they voted for John Kerry. Election Result: Kerry 8,000 votes. Call your congressman now - Tell him to vote Yes on Election Reform.

[Pirate Smile]

18. We would need a series of commercials because there are so many

issues to show and mention.

[BeFree]

19. My Dear, Ms Smile, you wrote, and I quote"

"A vote never cast can never be counted so the machines we use to vote on and how the votes are tabulated does not include a huge part of the problem.

"...does not include a huge part of the problem"

I am saying it IS the main problem. All I was doing was responding to your words. Not being hostile and insulting, just getting the facts straight. Please, eat your words if you so desire, nothing could make me happier. Hell, even Laura didn't quite get your gist, and she's a hell of a lot smarter than me, eh?

Peace.

[Pirate Smile]

20. I won't be eating them. I didn't make a pie chart allocating percentages

to the different problems.

Some issues have more concrete evidence for proving manipulation then others do at the moment. Frankly, we need to get inside of the friggin machines to look at their programs, if anything is left by now.

I thought your comment to Laura re read it again for the first time was insulting to her but I guess this is just how you treat people although I see now you are trying to be nice to her.

Your view is subjective just like all of the rest of us. It is your opinion.

[BeFree]

21. Yes, my opinion

Backed by hours of research. And testimony from many a computer expert as to the dangers. the Machines stole the vote!

Laura, for all her good graces, obviously misread your qoute, a quote you seem now inclined to dance around, added to that little jig is your castigation of me, now on two posts. Calling the kettle black, eh? Bad day?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

22. Dear Mr BF, I always knew what Pirate was saying. I was just

trying to feign confusion to humor you so you would not feel inadequate here.

PS Yes, Machine Fraud Rocks

[BeFree]

25. Ewww, another personal dig

Damn, two b****s hammering me, please, quit, I give!

Have fun, ladies. Neither of you elicits much trust after this exposition.

[Pirate Smile]

28. Thanks for the back-up Laura. I was really surprised when this turned

into some kind of pissing match. I don't even disagree with BF about the machines but nobody likes to be insulted.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

29. Hi Pirate. I really thought he was kidding around. But then he

swung the other way. Sometimes it's hard to know on here. I can't tell when someone is being sarcastic in a funny way or they are trying to put you down.

[New Earth]

14. NOBODY WON BUT THE VOTERS LOST!!!

[ewulf]

15. Everybody lost, and it was Bush's fault.

When one side commits fraud, everybody looses, even them.

Hows that for a line?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

17. LOL, No Rolling...

[madison2000]

23. America lost and the world lost

when Bush got more votes...

[Bill MI]

26. Don't get mad, get LOUD!!!

We need to flood the Judiciary Repuglicans with e-mails, letters, and phone calls in order to get them to understand how important this is. They MUST hold FULL investigations with subpeona powers.

<http://judiciary.house.gov/contact.aspx>

The idiots have megaphones, but we have numbers!

The Senate Democrats were cowed, this time by their constituents, into doing what they should have done in 2000. We can't stop now. The Fight has only begun!

[Bill MI]

27. I agree, generally...

The right to vote is not in the Constiution!
It's in the 2000 Bush v Gore decision (look it up).

The problem should be emphasized as a VOTING RIGHTS ISSUE.



But don't deny that if everyone who was eligible to vote was allowed to have their vote counted, Kerry won.

That's what I will believe, until the raw data from the exit polls are released and they contrict me. But why would they?

People were not allowed to vote! That will skew polling data.