Bush/Cheney '08

[Kal-el]

Republicans have officially started the campaign to amend the constitution by repealing the 22nd Amendment - the one that confines the President to 2 terms. If the Republicans hold their current strength, or increase it, in the 2006 Congressional elections, expect this measure to pass allowing Bush to remain President...

Source:
http//portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/319395.shtml

 

[iwant8inches]

I wouldn't worry about that happening. It's a universal concern that would be rejected by the public no matter what political allignment. We'd roll over all barriers and take Washington if that shit happened. There'd be no point in believing in the current government if that ever did pass so we'd have to take matters into our own hands. The term limitation is there for a good reason. But again it's highly unlikely that it would happen. It's worrisome when this comes up though.

 

[Kal-el]

Originally posted by iwant8inches:

I wouldn't worry about that happening. It's a universal concern that would be rejected by the public no matter what political allignment. We'd roll over all barriers and take Washington if that shit happened.

Yea, I personally find it hard to believe that an amendment of this sort would any kind of stable ground in D.C., especially now as Bush and company tarnish the GOP image. The passage of such an amendment would bring forth the wrath of the American people- in a way nobody wants to see.

I wish they would try to vote in in- and watch the political fallout as Bush is run out of Washington with the rest of his crooked entourage.

 

[iwant8inches]

We'll see that day long after another campaign to spread more democracy.

 

[cenoallen]

nobody wants it essentially even some republicans. but bush always pulls a trick or two out of his ass.technically he's not even the president. he wasn't legitimately voted in for either term.

 

[iwant8inches]

He sure as hell wasn't legitimately voted in.

 

[Kal-el]

Somehow he always manages to hijack election victories. But anyway some Republicans in the House apparently believe there aren't any GOP Presidential candidates who can win in 2008. No chance in hell of it passing, since it would require a 2/3 vote in both the House and Senate before being suBathmateitted to the states. The Repuplicans would have to pick up 12 seats in the Senate and about 60 in the House to win a 2/3 partyline vote.

 

[LambdaCalc]

Both sides have considered this in the past. It's not an evil republican conspiracy to keep Bush in the Whitehouse. If this passes, Clinton would be able to run again as well.

 

[thefranchise]

It will pass and Arnold will be president forever

 

[samzman]

we're all going to die!!!!

 

[Priapologist]

we're all going to die!!!!

LOL!

My sentiment exactly.

 

[goodbutnotgreat]

If we see another Clinton term, it's not going to be Bill, if you get my drift . . .

 

[Kal-el]

Originally posted by LambdaCalc:

Both sides have considered this in the past. It's not an evil republican conspiracy to keep Bush in the Whitehouse. If this passes, Clinton would be able to run again as well.

Why would Clinton need to run again? The exact same thing can be accomplished by putting Hilary in the Oval Office in 2008.

 

[LambdaCalc]

Well, not that it has anything to do with the fact that both sides have discussed this in the past but...

Bill Clinton vs GW or
Hillary Clinton vs GW

One of these sounds better than the other.

 

[penguinsfan]

I'm not going to have a serious discussion with people that spout this rhetoric about "stealing" elections (2004 is just laughable), but I'll just say that this idea has been tossed around by Reagan and Clinton supporters in the past.

Deep breath. Relax.

 

[Anony]

About some of those earlier posts. Clinton has said that if given the chance, he does not believe he would want to run again. The Presidency is a very stressing and demanding job. Look at Clinton before taking office then look at him leaving. 8 years is a long time but that man lost a lot of weight and looked very pale and tired towards the end. However, Hillary still is wanting a go at the presidency, and her husband says that he will support her 100%.

 

[iwant8inches]

I'm curious what is your position on the election of 04 guys? What have you read that has you convinced one way or another that the election was legitimate and should or should not have been recounted fairly in a key state like Ohio? Have you read the Conyers Report? Have you read articles in the paper or online about the thousands of voting irregularities? This should be a universal issue as the voting process should be near the very top of our concerns.

 

[against_odds21]

Well, I doubt there's a big conspiracy, but lousy vote counting? Prolly.

I think everyone legal should be required to vote. That's something I'd like to see happen.

 

[Bib]

Iwant8,

>I'm curious what is your position on the election of 04 guys? What have you read that has you convinced one way or another that the election was legitimate and should or should not have been recounted fairly in a key state like Ohio? Have you read the Conyers Report? Have you read articles in the paper or online about the thousands of voting irregularities? This should be a universal issue as the voting process should be near the very top of our concerns.<

I believe I have seen almost every single major news organization questioned as to why they did not investigate the 04 election. Each and every one has said they DID investigate it, and that no significant irregularities were found.

In particular, I watched a round table with audience participation on CSPAN, of the heads of the major print and media companies. Whether left or right, they each, in turn, said that any story of fraud would have been 'front page', and a welcome monetary gain for them. They also each said there was nothing to write about. Just nothing. Talk about sour grapes?

Do you think the Conyers report was written from an unbiased point of view? Do you realize that there are at least two democrat party representatives at each precinct, and can dispute anything at any time? Do you realize that the democrat party is represented at each stage, and at every instance of tabulation, and that they have to sign off on the results? Did you know that the Ohio vote was recounted, as a matter of course, and the recount viewed by representatives of the democrat party?

Bush received more votes than any candidate ever in US history. He has been through the same shit with Ann, Mark, Al and John. He has been called every name in the book, and accused of about every act humanly possible. All he has done is win each time.

I and over 60 million other voters put him back in office. Deal with it. My wish is that the Republicans have cloture, 60 Senate votes in '06. If the dems continue as they have, it will be easy.

Bigger

 

[Bib]

BTW, isn't it odd that for such a numbskull as Bush, the Republicans have made gains in Congress, Senate and House, Governors, state houses, etc., for each and every election since he has been in office? Even made historical precedent in his first term, mid-term election gains? We must find a clue.

Bigger

 

[iwant8inches]

Iwant8,

>I'm curious what is your position on the election of 04 guys? What have you read that has you convinced one way or another that the election was legitimate and should or should not have been recounted fairly in a key state like Ohio? Have you read the Conyers Report? Have you read articles in the paper or online about the thousands of voting irregularities? This should be a universal issue as the voting process should be near the very top of our concerns.<

I believe I have seen almost every single major news organization questioned as to why they did not investigate the 04 election. Each and every one has said they DID investigate it, and that no significant irregularities were found.

In particular, I watched a round table with audience participation on CSPAN, of the heads of the major print and media companies. Whether left or right, they each, in turn, said that any story of fraud would have been 'front page', and a welcome monetary gain for them. They also each said there was nothing to write about. Just nothing. Talk about sour grapes?

Do you think the Conyers report was written from an unbiased point of view? Do you realize that there are at least two democrat party representatives at each precinct, and can dispute anything at any time? Do you realize that the democrat party is represented at each stage, and at every instance of tabulation, and that they have to sign off on the results? Did you know that the Ohio vote was recounted, as a matter of course, and the recount viewed by representatives of the democrat party?

Bush received more votes than any candidate ever in US history. He has been through the same shit with Ann, Mark, Al and John. He has been called every name in the book, and accused of about every act humanly possible. All he has done is win each time.

I and over 60 million other voters put him back in office. Deal with it. My wish is that the Republicans have cloture, 60 Senate votes in '06. If the dems continue as they have, it will be easy.

Bigger

I've read the Conyers Report and obviously you haven't. There are numerous obvious violations of the Voting Rights Act, Equal Protection, Due Process, and Ohio's right to vote law. The Report was done based on facts and nowhere is there bias analysis. READ IT. Blackwell did virtually everything he could to discourage voters and Republican party members particularly did all they could to discourage or intimidate the minority vote. The book consists of FACTs, official testimonial, news articles, ohio law, and reported confirmed statistics.

He tried to do all he could to cut back the right to provisional ballots in Ohio just for starters and I will be posting much more on this subject. http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/10/22/loc_blackwell22.html
http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/state/9969776.htm
http://www.fairelection.us/documents/ohio_article_3.htm
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/100104J.shtml


But read this lest you're scared your position might change.

From What Went Wrong In Ohio

III. Post Election

A. Confusion In Counting Provisional Ballots

Facts

Secretary Blackwell's failure to issue standards for the counting of provisional ballots led to a chaotic and confusing result:each of Ohio's 88 counties could count legal ballots differently or not at all. This inevitably led to the kind of arbitrary ruling which was made after the election in Cuyahoga County, where it was manadated that provisional ballots in yellow packets must be "rejected" if there is no "date of birth" on the packet. This ruling was issued despite the fact that the original "Privisional Verification Procedure" from Cuyahoga County stated, "Date of birth is not mandatory and should not reject a provisional ballot" and simply required that the voter's name, address and a signature match the signature in the county's database. The People for the American Way Foundation sought a legal ruling ordering Secretary Blackwell and the County Elections Board to compare paper registration and electronic records. People for the American Way further asked the Board to notify each voter whose ballot was invalidated about how the invalidation could be challenged. Neither of these actions were taken.

In another case, while the counties were directed by the state to ensure that voters were registered during the thirty days before the election, one college student who had been registered since 2000, and was living away from home, was denied a provisional ballot.

Analysis

Mr. Blackwell's failure to articulate clear and consistent standards for the counting of provisional ballots probably resulted in the loss of several thousand votes in Cuyahoga County alone, and the loss of untold more statewide. This is because the lack of guidance and the ultimate narrow and arbitrary review standards imposed in Cuyahoga County appear to have significantly contributed to the fact that in that county, 8,099 out of 24,472 provisional ballots, or approximately one third, were ruled invalid, the highest proportion in the state. This number is twice as high as the percentage of provisional ballots rejected in 2000.

These series of events constitute a possible violation of the Voting Rights Act, since the apparent discarding of legitimate votes undoubtedly had a disproportionate impact on Minority voters concentrated in urban areas like Cuyahoga County which had the highest shares of the state's provisional ballots. The actions may also violate Ohio's constitutional right to vote.

As for that recount in Ohio-

C. TRIAD GSI-USING A "CHEAT SHEET" TO CHEAT THE VOTERS IN HOCKING AND OTHER COUNTIES

Facts

Perhaps the most disturbing irregularity that we have discovered in connection with the recount involves the activities and operations of TRIAD GSI, a voting machine company. On December 13, 2004, House Judiciary Committee Democratic staff met with Sherole Eaton, Deputy Director of Elections for Hocking County. She explained that on Friday, December 10, 2004, Michael Barbian, Jr., a representative of Triad GSI, unilaterally sought and obtained access to the voting machinery and records in Hocking County, Ohio.

Ms. Eaton saw Mr. Barbian modify the Hocking County computer vote tabulator before the announcement of the Ohio recount. Then, when the plan was announced that the Hocking County precinct was to be the subject of the initial Ohio test recount, Ms. eaton saw Mr. Barbian make further alterations based on his knowledge of that plan. Ms. Eaton also has firsthand knowledge that Mr. Barbian told election officials how to manipulate voting machinery to ensure that a preliminary hand recount would match the machine count. A full state recount could be done only if the hand-and machine-recounts did not match, and it would appear that Mr. Barbian's manipulations were intended to insure that they did match.

According to the affidavit, the Triad official sought access to the voting machinery based on the apparent pretext that he wanted to review some "legal questions" that Ohio voting officials might receive as part of the recount process. Several times during his interaction with Hocking County voting machines, Mr. Barbian telephoned Triad's offices to obtain programming information relating to the machinery and the precinct in question. It is now known that Triad officials have intervened in other counties in Ohio: Grenne and Monroe, and perhaps others.

In fact, Mr. Barbian has admitted that he altered tabulating software in Hocking, Lorain, Muskingum, Clark, Harrison, and Guernsey counties. Todd Rapp, President of Triad, has also confirmed that these sorts of changed are standard procedure for his company.

Firstly, during an interview, filmmaker Lynda Byrket asked Mr. Barbian, "You were just trying to help them so that wouldn't have to do a full recount of the county, to try to acoid that?" Mr Barbian answered, "Right." She went on to ask: "Did any of your counties have to do a full recount?" Mr. Barbian replied, "Not that I'm aware of."

Secondly, it appears that Mr. Barbian's activities were not the actions of a rogue computer programmer, but the official policy of Triad. Todd Rapp explained during a Hocking County Board of Elections meeting:

The purpose was to train people on how to conduct their jobs and to help them identify problems when they conducted the recount. If they could not hand count the ballots correctly, they would know what they needed to look for in that hand count.

Barbian noted that he had "provided [other counties] reports so they could review the information on their own."

One observer asked, "Why do you feel it was necessary to point out to a team counting ballots the number of overvotes and undervotes, when the purpose of the team is to in fact locate those votes and judge them?"

Barbian responded,"...it's just human error. The machine count is right....We're trying to give them as much information to help them out."

In addition, Doubglas W. Jones, a computer election expert from the University of Iowa, reviewed the Eaton Affidavit and concluded that it described behavior that was dangerous and unnecessary:

I have reviewed the Affidavit of Sherole L. Eaton ("the Eaton Affadavit"), the Deputy Director of the Hocking County Board of Elections, as well as the letter of Congressman John Conyers to Kevin Brock, Special Agent in Charge with the FBI in Cincinnati, Ohio. In light of this information, and given my expertise and research on voting technology issues and the integrity of ballot counting systems, it is my professional opinion that the incident in Hocking County, Ohio, threatens the overall integrity of the recount of the presidential election in Ohio, and threatens the ability of the presidential candidates, their witnesses, and the counter-plaintiffs in the above-captioned action, to properly analyze, inspect, and assess the ballots and the related voting data from the 2004 presidential election in Ohio. It is my understanding that 41 of Ohio's 88 counties use Triad voting machines. As a result, the incident in Hocking County could compromise the statewide recount, and undermine the public's trust in the credibility and accuracy of the recount.

We have received several additional reports of machine irregularities involving several other counties serviced by Triad, including a report that Triad was able to alter election software by remote access:

In Union County, the hard drive on the vote tabulation machine, a Triad machine, had failed after the election and had been replaced. The old hard drive was returned to the Union County Board of Elections in response to a subpoena.

The Directors of the board of Elections in both Fulton and Henry County stated that the Triad company had reprogrammed the computer by remote dial-up to count only the presidential votes prior to the start of the recount.

In Monroe County, the 3% hand count failed to match the machine count twice. Subsequent runs on that machine did not match each other nor the hand count. The Monroe County Board of Elections summoned a repairman from Triad to bring a new machine and the recount was suspended and reconvened for the following day. On the following day, a new machine was present at the Board of Elections office and the old machine was gone. The Board conducted a test-run followed by the 3% handcounted ballots. The results matched this time, and the Board conducted the remainder of the recount by machine.

In Harrison County, a representative of the Triad company reprogrammed and retested the tabulator machine and software prior to the start of the recount. The Harrison County tabulating computer is connected to a second computer linked to the Secretary of State's Office in Columbus. The Triad technician handled all ballots during the machine recount and performed all tabulation functions. The Harrison County Board of elections kept voted ballots and unused ballots in a romm open to direct public access during daytime hours when the courthouse is open. The Board had placed voted ballots in unsealed transfer cases stored in an old wooden cabinet that, at one point, was said to be lockable and, at another point, was said to be unlockable.

On December 15, 2004, Rep. Conyers forwarded information concerning the irregularities alleged in the Eaton Affidavit to the FBI and to local prosecutors in Ohio. He has not received a response to that letter. On December 22, 2004, Rep. Conyers forwarded a series a questions concerning this course of events to the President of Traid GSI and to Mr. Barbian. Counsel for Triad GSI has indicated that a response would be forthcoming later this week or shortly thereafter. [This report was written toward the end of December or the first week in January.]

Analysis

Based on the above, including actual admissions and statements by Triad employees, it strongly appears that Triad and its employees engaged in a course of behavior to provide "cheated sheets" to those counting the ballots. The cheat sheets told them how many votes they should find for each candidate, and how many over-and under-votes they should calculate to match the machine count. In that way, they could avoid doing a full county-wide hand recount mandated by state law. If true, this would frustrate the entire purpose of the recount law-designed randomly to ascertain if the vote-counting apparatus is operating fairly and effectively, and, if it is not, to conduct a full hand recount. By ensuring that election-night results, Triad's actions may well have prevented scores of counties from conducting a full and fair recount in compliance with Equal Protection, Due Process, and the First Amendment.

In addition, the course of conduct outlined above would appear to violate numerous provisions of Federal and state law. As noted above, 42 U.S.C. S 1973 provides for criminal penalties for any person who, in any election for Federal office, "knowingly and willfullt deprives, defrauds, or attempts to defraud the residents of a State of a fair and impartially conducted election process, by...the procurement, casting, or tabulation of ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held." Section 1974 requires the retention and preservation of all voting records and papers for a period of twenty-two months from the date of a Federal election and makes it a felony for any person to "willfully steal, destroy, conceal, mutilate, or alter" any such record.

Ohio law further prohibits election machinery from being serviced, modified, or altered in any way subsequent to an election, unless it is so done in the presence of the full Board of Elections and other observers. Any handling of ballots for a subsequent recount must be done in the presence of the entire Board and any qualified witnesses. This would seem to operate as a de facto bar against altering voting machines by remote access. Containers in which ballots are kept may not be opened before all of the required participants are in attendance. It is critical to note that the fact that these "ballots" were not papers in a box is of no consequence in the inquiry as to whether State and Federal laws were violated by Mr. Barbian's conduct: Ohio Revised Code defines a ballot as "the official election presentation of offices and candidates...and the means by which votes are recorded." OHIO REC. CODE S 3506.01(B) (West 2004). Therefore, purposes of Ohio law, electronic records stored in the Board's computer are to be considered "ballots." Triad's interference with the computers and their software would seem to violate these requirements.

Further, any modification of the election machinery may be done only after full notice to the Secretary of State. Ohio Code and related regulations require that after the State certifies a voting system, changes that affect "(a) the method of recording voter intent;(b) voter privacy;(c) retention of the vote; or (d) the communication of voting records," must be done only after full notice to the Secretary of State." We are not aware that any such notice was given to the Secretary.

Finally, Secretary Blackwell's own directive, coupled with Ohio Revised Code S 3505.32, prohibits any handling of these ballots without bipartisan witnesses present. That section of the code provides that during a period of official canvassing, all interaction with ballots must be "in the presence of all of the members of the board and any other persons who are entitled to witness the official canvass." The Ohio Secretary of State issued orders that election officials are to treat all election materials as if the State were in a period or canvassing, and that, "teams of one Democrat and one Republican must be present with ballots at all times of processing."

Triad sought to respond to these charges by arguing that Ohio law requires a Board of Elections to prevent the counting or tabulation of other races during a recount and limit these activities to those offices or issues for which a formal recount request has been filed. However, this requirement does not supersede the above requirements that election machinery only be serviced or otherwise altered in the presence of the full Elections Board and observers. There are at least two ways this recount process could have been conducted legally. Firstly, recounters could have been given the full ballot and been instructed simply not to count the other races recorded. Secondly, the service company employees could have waited to alter the software program until the offical recount began in the presence of the Board and qualifying witnesses. Neither of these scenarios occurred in the present case.

In addition to these provisions imposing duties on the Board of Elections, there are numerous criminal penalties that can be incurred by those who actually tampered with the machines. These apply to persons who "tamper or attempt to tamper with...or otherwise change or injure in any manner any marking device, automatic tabulating equipment or any appurtenances or accessories thereof;" "destroy any property used in the conduct of elections; "unlawfully destroyor attempt to destroy the ballots, or permit such ballots or a ballot box or pollbook used at an election to be destroyed; or destroy [or] falsify;" and "willfully and with fraudulent intent make any mark or alteration on any ballot."

It is noteworthy that Triad and its affiliates, the companies implicated in the midsconduct outlined above, are the leading suppliers of voting machines involved in the counting of paper ballots and punch cards in the critical states of Ohio and Florida. Triad is controlled by the Rapp family, and its founder Brett A. rapp has been a consistent contributor to Republican causes. In addition, a Triad affiliate, Psephos Corporation, supplied the notorious butterfly ballot used in Palm Beach County, Florida, in the 2000 Presidential election.

What Went Wrong In Ohio 2005. Academy Chicago Publishers. Edited by Anita Miller.


Ohio uses election judges and shouldn't have had to have as many challengers at the polls. Ohio uses election judges and shouldn't have had to have challengers at the polls. The consequences of a decision to allow multiple challengers at each polling place by each political party backed by Secretary of State Blackwell was the Republican party registering one challenger for each precinct while the Democrats registered one challenger for each polling place. HUGE DIFFERENCE. That doesn't smell right. Republicans had poll challengers in 30 of the 88 counties, and a vast majority were focused in Minority and urban areas. http://www.democracymeansyou.com/ohio_conyers/page0043.htm

I can give other sources that are from the book and some that are not if you'd like. I'd be surprised if you've read this far though seeing as how you're so decided on your position, which is based on what was said as opposed to something you've seen for yourself.

 

[penguinsfan]

I'm curious what is your position on the election of 04 guys? What have you read that has you convinced one way or another that the election was legitimate and should or should not have been recounted fairly in a key state like Ohio? Have you read the Conyers Report? Have you read articles in the paper or online about the thousands of voting irregularities? This should be a universal issue as the voting process should be near the very top of our concerns.

I haven't read it and I'll be honest with you, I doubt I'll any more than glance it at. John Conyers is a lunatic at the most far left extreme of the party. If I'm not mistaken, this is the reparations for slavery nutcase. I'm sure if I busted ass in the same room as Conyers I'd be charged with a hate crime, since Conyers has the uncanny ability to make a racial issue out of anything. As I said, an absolute lunatic.

The complaints I have heard about Ohio have included extremely long lines waiting to vote. Well, that is controlled at the local level. Here in Pennsylvania one of the most wealthy communities outside of Pittsburgh with a high percentage of Republican voters had eight-hour lines to vote. I watched the news that night and heard all about people waiting for hours to vote in Gambier, OH, but nothing about the Pittsburgh situation. I heard very little about the voting machines in Philadelphia that had thousands of recorded votes tabulated on them when the polls opened the morning of the election. In 2000, there were poor neighborhoods in Philadelphia with 100% voter turnout. Not one single person had something come up that kept him from the polls. Not one person got too drunk or cracked out to make it to the polls. The patriotism almost brings a tear to my eye.

I can understand how you can make a case for Florida in 2000, though I don't buy it. However, Ohio was nowhere near that close, although close. Listen, this is only going to cause backlash and I hate when Congress gets to far bridged because either party will push an extreme agenda and someone will really get fucked. If you keep believing stolen elections are the missing link, you won't even have 25 Senators from the Democratic party. Democrats have got to quit listening to the Michael Moore/Mike Malloy nonsense or that "fascism" you live under...well, it will NEVER go away.

 

[Bib]

Iwant8,

>I've read the Conyers Report and obviously you haven't. There are numerous obvious violations of the Voting Rights Act, Equal Protection, Due Process, and Ohio's right to vote law. The Report was done based on facts and nowhere is there bias analysis. READ IT.<

You MUST BE JOKING! You were able to write the above paragraph without your fingers falling off? Conyers not biased? Sorry, but I disagree. Penguin nailed Conyers. And reading the above would violate my stance on reading biased sources. It also violates my ban on reading things written by idiots. And NO, I never read my own stuff either.

Why did you not reply to my comments concerning the statements by even liberal news media that there was NOTHING wrong with the Ohio results?

>Blackwell did virtually everything he could to discourage voters and Republican party members particularly did all they could to discourage or intimidate the minority vote. The book consists of FACTs, official testimonial, news articles, ohio law, and reported confirmed statistics.<

And FINALLY, to cut through all the bullshit, and end the debate: You can bet your ass if there had been anything, in anyway, that might have changed the election results in Ohio, the fucking democrats would have been in court in a heartbeat.

Surely even a cool-aid drinker can realize this point. With the Conyers report, they are able to sit back and snipe, create doubt in the minds of the weak, without ever having to actually prove anything. They did not WANT a court case, because they could never have WON a court case. Proving Bush was the winner in Ohio is the LAST thing they ever wanted. Case closed.

Bigger

 

[Bib]

BTW, Kennedy barely won the 1960 election, carrying Texas by the slim margin provided by tiny Duval county in South Texas. Something lke five times more voters voted for Kennedy than even LIVED in Duval country. I think every dead person expired over the previous two decades voted in that election.

Nixon knew about the farce, but refused to contest the election. Interesting tidbit.

Also, read up on the Daly regime in Chicago, and there ties to the Dems. Really fascinating.

Bigger

 

[iwant8inches]

The Bush clan...Kennedy clan...they both are dirty. Chicagoans complain more than anyone I've ever met. I have family there. What the hell are you talking about anyway? I'm not a Democrat. The Republicans have the power and it's apparent that you'd like to see a one party system, which is scary. You've had a few things you've typed on here that were word for word what Bush has said. Anyone taking the President's word on something is drinking something.

You can believe what you want, but when someone cites what they are talking about and has testimony from voting machine company employees on record I'll listen. Your liberal media sources I have yet to see and I doubt those liberal media sources whatever they may be was on TV. The report isn't John Conyers just ranting about some issue he is making up.

 

[Bib]

Iwant8,

You honestly do not believe John Conyers twists facts or events or digs up crap to meet his own agenda? Then you my friend are drinking something.

>The Republicans have the power and it's apparent that you'd like to see a one party system, which is scary.<

No, the Dems are providing a very valuable service. They are showing how good the Republicans are by comparison. But the Republicans are not my desired cup of tea either. They fail on many fronts.

>You've had a few things you've typed on here that were word for word what Bush has said. Anyone taking the President's word on something is drinking something.<

Then you should easily be able to point out where I and/or Bush is wrong, and be able to defend your stance.

>You can believe what you want, but when someone cites what they are talking about and has testimony from voting machine company employees on record I'll listen. Your liberal media sources I have yet to see and I doubt those liberal media sources whatever they may be was on TV. The report isn't John Conyers just ranting about some issue he is making up.<

Once again, the NYT, WP, AP, UPI, CBS, ABC, CNN, etc, etc, all looked into voting irregularities, and could find NOTHING of substance. Once again, why were there NO lawsuits filed questioning the results. Talk about sour grapes!

Bigger

 

[iwant8inches]

What about federal court rulings? Do they not give an objective viewpoint? Ohio's Sec. of State did not do his job. He ignored HAVA and did whatever he could do do the opposite of what HAVA's intended purpose. The fact that it was the first time HAVA would come into play in the presidential election doesn't excuse the fact that he ignored all related inquiries and complaints.

And you still haven't considered the way the recounts were done. Under Ohio law if the hand count doesn't match the machine count then the inconsistencies must be rechecked. Several counties did not randomly select the precinct samples which was a violation of Blackwell's own directive. Despite all the violations and laws that were evident Blackwell ignored his duties to initiate investigations into the matters.

I would think that the vast margin of error in the exit polling would be enough of a red flag to have a definitive investigation into the election by independent commissions of some sort or at least a cause for questioning the legitimacy of the outcome. It doesn't seem like the nonrandom recount and cheat sheets provided by Triad to ensure the hand and machine recounts matched are legal in the state of Ohio anyway.

I mean shit people talk about a controversial Super Bowl ending or BCS Championship game 6 months after the fact and at least more times than not those on the winning side admit that they understand the other's grievances. But we don't want to look into any of this and make changes that can get rid of many of the massive irregularities, which would bring a sense of confidence back to the presidential election's legitimacy. Bush had the highest total votes in U.S. history and Kerry had the second highest number of votes in U.S. history, but the outcome is disputable.

 

[Bib]

Iwant8,

So tiring. Believe as you wish, or rather, as you have been conditioned to believe.

Bigger

 

[iwant8inches]

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05956.pdf

I have to admit that I've only read the first 19 pages of the report/to slide 25 on the acrobat scroll bar. I am still trying to finish up a few other reports that are just as long. Here is an article though on the relevance of some of the report's key findings.

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1529

Well, I'll be...I guess now there is something to the problems that were addressed in the Conyers Report afterall. Gee, I would have never guessed that what the book mentioned about HAVA and how the great state of OH had done pretty much the opposite of what HAVA was intended to do for voters would hold up. How we can sit back when it was believed that the electronic voting machine's vote totals could be manipulated fairly easily was beyond me and now it's confirmed that all the things described in the Conyers report were indeed very much possible and that is just concerning the security and reliability of electronic vote machines. It's a good thing that we have these machines. I mean how else would we have such a fine President in office today? Here is a bit of info about the Help America Vote Act.

Page 14 GAO-05-956 Electronic Voting Systems
HAVA Is Expected to
Enhance the Federal Role in
Election Processes

In October 2002, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) to
provide states with organizations, processes, and resources for improving
the administration of future federal elections. The act also specified time
frames for the availability of these organizations, processes, and resources.
The act was intended, among other things, to encourage states to upgrade
antiquated voting systems and technologies and to support the states in
making federally mandated improvements to their voting systems, such as
ensuring that voters can verify their votes before casting their ballot,
providing records for manual auditing of voting systems, and establishing
maximum error rates for counting ballots.
11According to spokespersons for national advocacy groups for people with disabilities, only
a small percentage of blind people have the Braille proficiency needed to vote using a Braille
ballot.
12Using a mouth-held straw, the voter issues switch commands—hard puff, hard sip, soft
puff, and soft sip—to provide signals or instructions to the voting machine.
Page 15 GAO-05-956 Electronic Voting Systems
Organizations. HAVA established the Election Assistance Commission
(EAC) and gave this commission responsibility for activities and programs
related to the administration of federal elections. This independent federal
agency consists of four presidential appointees confirmed by the Senate, as
well as support staff, including personnel inherited from the former Office
of Election Administration of the Federal Election Commission. EAC
commissioners were appointed in December 2003, and the commission
began operations in January 2004. EAC is intended to serve as a national
clearinghouse and resource for the compilation of information and
procedures on election administration. Its responsibilities relative to voting
systems include
• adopting and maintaining voluntary voting system guidelines;
• managing a national program for testing, certification, decertification,
and recertification of voting system hardware and software;
• maintaining a clearinghouse of information on the experiences of state
and local governments in implementing the guidelines and operating
voting systems; and
• conducting studies and other activities to promote effective
administration of federal elections.
HAVA also established three organizations and levied new requirements on
a fourth to assist EAC in establishing voting system standards and
performing its responsibilities, including standards and responsibilities
involving the security and reliability of voting systems:
• The Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) is to assist
EAC in developing voluntary voting system standards (which are now
called guidelines). This committee includes selected state and local
election officials and representatives of professional and technical
organizations. It is chaired by the Director of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology.
• The Standards Board brings together one state and one local official
from each of the 55 states and territories to review the voluntary voting
system guidelines developed by TGDC and provide comments and
recommendations on the guidelines to EAC.
Page 16 GAO-05-956 Electronic Voting Systems
• The Board of Advisors is made up of 37 members—many from various
professional and specialty organizations.13 Like the Standards Board, the
Board of Advisors reviews the voluntary voting system guidelines
developed by TGDC and provides comments and recommendations to
EAC.
• The Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) provides technical support to TGDC, including
research and development of the voting system guidelines. NIST is also
responsible for monitoring and reviewing the performance of
independent testing laboratories (previously known as independent
testing authorities) and making recommendations for accreditation and
revocation of accreditation of the laboratories by EAC. NIST’s
responsibilities for improving the security and reliability of electronic
voting systems include identification of security and reliability
standards for voting system computers, networks, and data storage;
methods to detect and prevent fraud; and protections for voter privacy
and remote voting system access.
Processes. HAVA provides for three major processes related to the security
and reliability of voting systems: updating voluntary standards, accrediting
independent testing laboratories, and certifying voting systems to meet
national standards. HAVA specifies the organizations involved, activities to
be undertaken, public visibility for the processes, and, in some cases, work
products and deadlines. These processes are described below.
• Updating standards. EAC and TGDC were given responsibility for
evaluating and updating the Federal Election Commission’s voluntary
voting system standards of 2002. TGDC is to propose standards changes
within 9 months of the appointment of all of its members, and EAC is to
hold a public hearing and a comment period for the standards changes
and allow at least 90 days for review and comment by the standards and
13The Board of Advisors includes scientific and technical experts appointed by Congress and
representatives from the National Governors Association; the National Conference of State
Legislatures; the National Association of Secretaries of State; the National Association of
State Election Directors; the National Association of Counties; the National Association of
County Recorders, Election Administrators, and Clerks; the United States Conference of
Mayors; the Election Center; the International Association of County Recorders, Election
Officials, and Treasurers; the United States Commission on Civil Rights; the Architectural
and Transportation Barrier Compliance Board; the Office of Public Integrity of the
Department of Justice; the Voting Section of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights
Division; and the Federal Voting Assistance Program of the Department of Defense.
Page 17 GAO-05-956 Electronic Voting Systems
advisory boards before voting on the standards. EAC and its boards are
also to consider updates to the standards on an annual basis.
• Accrediting laboratories. NIST’s director is charged with evaluating the
capabilities of independent nonfederal laboratories to carry out
certification testing of voting systems within 6 months after EAC adopts
the first update to the voluntary voting system standards.14 Through its
National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program, NIST is to
recommend qualified laboratories for EAC’s accreditation, provide
ongoing monitoring and reviews of the accredited laboratories, and
recommend revocation of accreditation, if necessary.
• Certifying systems. EAC is to establish processes for certifying,
decertifying, and recertifying voting systems. HAVA allows the current
processes (as conducted under the National Association of State
Election Directors) to continue until the laboratory accreditation
processes to be developed by NIST are established and laboratories are
accredited by EAC to conduct certification testing. States may also use
the nationally accredited testing laboratories for testing associated with
certification, decertification, and recertification of voting systems to
meet state certification requirements.
The majority of states currently rely on federal standards, but do not
require national certification testing to ensure that voting systems meet
functional, performance, and quality goals. On the basis of an April 2005
review of state statutes and administrative rules, EAC identified at least 30
states that require their voting systems to meet federal standards issued by
the Federal Election Commission, EAC, or both (see fig. 4). As for
certification, the majority of states require state certification of voting
systems, but do not require national testing. Only 13 states currently
require their systems to be tested against the federal standards by
independent testing authorities and certified by the National Association of
State Election Directors (see fig. 4). In commenting on a draft of this
report, EAC noted that some state and local jurisdictions can choose to
exceed state statute and administrative rules—and may be using federal
standards and national certification testing.
14These standards are fundamental to identifying the capabilities that the laboratories must
possess.



Results in Brief

While electronic voting systems hold promise for a more accurate and
efficient election process, numerous entities have raised concerns about
their security and reliability, citing instances of weak security controls,
system design flaws, inadequate system version control, inadequate
security testing, incorrect system configuration, poor security
management, and vague or incomplete voting system standards, among
other issues. For example, studies found (1) some electronic voting
systems did not encrypt cast ballots or system audit logs, and it was
possible to alter both without being detected; (2) it was possible to alter the
files that define how a ballot looks and works so that the votes for one
candidate could be recorded for a different candidate; and (3) vendors
installed uncertified versions of voting system software at the local level. It
is important to note that many of the reported concerns were drawn from
specific system makes and models or from a specific jurisdiction’s election,
and that there is a lack of consensus among election officials and other
experts on the pervasiveness of the concerns. Nevertheless, some of these
concerns were reported to have caused local problems in federal
elections—resulting in the loss or miscount of votes—and therefore merit
attention.

 

[Texan]

BTW, Kennedy barely won the 1960 election, carrying Texas by the slim margin provided by tiny Duval county in South Texas. Something lke five times more voters voted for Kennedy than even LIVED in Duval country. I think every dead person expired over the previous two decades voted in that election.

Nixon knew about the farce, but refused to contest the election. Interesting tidbit.

Also, read up on the Daly regime in Chicago, and there ties to the Dems. Really fascinating.

Bigger

Totally true. It is pretty well known that this FACT was the reasoning (albeit poor judgement) behind the Watergate matter. Nixon was paranoid that it would happen again.

Hell, there are voting irregularities in eevry state (probably every county in every election. Texas had some irregularities written about in the lasy election, even though Bush got like 65% or so of Texas, and there was no way in heck he was going to lose the popular vote and electoral votes from our state. You just can't avoid "irregularities" when you have 120 million voting in one election. And do party underlings get overzealous? Of course... on both sides.

As for an amendment to end Presidential term limits, well, I wouldn't support it and I voted for Bush twice. Most people wouldn't, b/c we realize had their been no term limits we'd still have Clinton in office. Remeber his joke during the 200 fiasco: "If nobody else wants it, I'll be glad to stay in office..."

 

[Texan]

By the way, did you all know that the first Republican elected President, Abraham Lincoln, only received 39% of the popular vote?

 

[iwant8inches]

I'm not trying to pretend for a second that we live in a society that is different than any other in history. Obviously we agree there will always be corruption and elections that are contested, but does that mean we should stop making the efforts to correct mistakes, close loop holes, and do what should be done to prevent stolen elections and at the very least make the voting process more open to the public. Why is it that the same people are always left out and shitted on? I do want us to stop pretending that we can't do something to change that for once. We can't go back in time and prevent what has already happened, but we know what can help achieve more or less a new standard for this country's election process without complicating it to the point where our election process is painfully perverse and wholly discriminate. Do these electronic voting machines sound shady or not? Should we continue to make mockery of our government by further privatizing even the voting process? Let's just get it over with and let the oligarchy/corporate heads of the largest campaign contributors elect our President and other representatives.

 

[penguinsfan]

I have to admit that I've only read the first 19 pages of the report/to slide 25 on the acrobat scroll bar.

For whatever it's worth, I often don't get to respond to many of your posts because I just don't have time to read through all the links and shit. I'm not knocking your attempt to document your position, just telling you my situation.

 

[penguinsfan]

As for an amendment to end Presidential term limits, well, I wouldn't support it and I voted for Bush twice.

I'm in the same boat and I am glad to have term limits. I have had more than my fill of Dubya and can't wait to see his ass out of office.

 

[penguinsfan]

Obviously we agree there will always be corruption and elections that are contested, but does that mean we should stop making the efforts to correct mistakes, close loop holes, and do what should be done to prevent stolen elections and at the very least make the voting process more open to the public.

We probably agree on this voting issue. I hate the idea of the machines. I'm not buying into the conspiracies that these machines stole the last election, but they obviously have their problems. They need to go back to the paper ballot and make sure they get it right, even if it would take longer to count the results.

I don't know what you mean by making voting more open to the public. The process is pretty simple. I am totally against ideas like internet voting, which could be open to massive fraud. My feeling on internet voting is if you're too fucking lazy to visit your local poll, then you don't deserve to vote. I am also opposed to things like same day registration that can lead to people doing some last minute recruiting of people totally ignorant of and apathetic to the political spectrum. If you're going to participate in the process, then you should take it seriously and be willing to put forth a little time and effort.

Why is it that the same people are always left out and shitted on?

I don't think the same people are always left out and shitted on. Look at who moans and bitches about this supposed problem. They tend to be the same people that think God is a racist if they wake up and see it raining outside.

Do these electronic voting machines sound shady or not?

Yes.

 

[Colossus]

I'm originally from New Orleans and I say fuck Bush.

 

[Spektrum]

Honestly, I don't understand why people argue about politics.

Politicians, Republican and Democrat, don't give a damn about you or me. They all have their own personal agendas. If you stick up for either side you are a moron.

What I have found is that people that support Republicans are either rich greedy bastards or dumb rednick hecks. People that support Democrats are usually the hippie type that believe in taxing people to death to pay for failing social programs. Fuck both sides. How about a party for the regular hard working American?

 

[Spektrum]

Uh, that's supposed to be "redneck hicks" :hammer:

 

[penguinsfan]

Hey, I love the idea of a third party, but it just isn't going to happen. The two powerhouses will watch each others backs just enough to make sure they continue the profitable venture they been pulling off for decade after decade.

Personally, I would like to see more parties and a run-off election. That way, many platforms are put forth and then the voters get to choose between a final two. Such a system would have kept Nader from taking votes from Gore in 2000 and would have kept Perot from taking votes from Bush in 1992. Clearly, all indications are such a system would have altered history. As much as I think the founding fathers gave us a great system of government, I think this would be an improvement.

 

[iwant8inches]

Hey, I love the idea of a third party, but it just isn't going to happen. The two powerhouses will watch each others backs just enough to make sure they continue the profitable venture they been pulling off for decade after decade.

Personally, I would like to see more parties and a run-off election. That way, many platforms are put forth and then the voters get to choose between a final two. Such a system would have kept Nader from taking votes from Gore in 2000 and would have kept Perot from taking votes from Bush in 1992. Clearly, all indications are such a system would have altered history. As much as I think the founding fathers gave us a great system of government, I think this would be an improvement.

Well, the third party idea is not going to happen you are right on penguinsfan what with the amount of signatures you need not to mention the money it takes to raise to run for anything noteworthy. Local levels are easier obviously to run, but that's not what we were discussing necessarily in the post you responded to.

And the guy that mentioned that its useless to argue about politics well, I'm not sure if it is unfortunate or fortunate but we wouldn't have reached this point in time if we just let the government completely run us over. The GAO is something useful to the public for istance so why not apppreciate it? I'd like to think that we could continue to think pragmatically and continue to take the things we've collected from previous civilizations/peoples which were useful to the people then as much as it is today say...the way most of Europe used the Codex Constitutionum and found a way to utilize it for their own people. The point of a government is stability through order so as to ensure survival and HOPenis EnlargementFULLY acheive societal progress (not always the case in fact not historically always the case). We all have different views and opinions therefore we use discourse to decide the best way to go about governing the people of our country. We're fortunate enough to have that autonomy in the U.S., but I feel like there is more illusion of order and flexibility to change things for the better than is actually present. Even though there has always been the illusion of this government for the people by the people there have been points in time when the people have gotten things right. We are getting closer to actually reaching the point of not being able to hault the bad actions particularly the actions or decisions that are injustices to the people and this is becoming prominent and we're accepting it.

The GAO has given us something that shows astounding evidence of a system in which our votes when tabulated and cast in the said voting machines can easily be altered due to a complete lack of credible safeguards. That is not something we should take lightly and definitely is not something that should have been rushed to implementation, yet it was at least in my state it was. Now there are several states looking to make it harder to vote. Why so much work to muddy up a situation that is under dispute? I've been looking into this House Bill or HB3 in Ohio and I don't understand why a lot of this is being done when we have questions about the people involved in ultimately making these changes. I don't want the people that are bastardizing our basic rights in this system to continue making decisions on my behalf. Get them the fuck out! It looks like they are trying to make it so it doesn't matter what the people want Penis EnlargementRIOD and there are confirmed methods to acheiving the furthering of political careers at politicians' discretion.


There were "...charges of mis-programming, re-programming, recalibrating, mishandling and manipulation of electronic voting software, hardware and memory cards have since arisen throughout Ohio 2004."

http://alternet.org/rights/29292/

The authors of this article are two of the most dedicated investigators I've ever encountered. I have a tough time finding anything that is inaccurate in their pieces. At times the columns they write are slanted more than some can stomach, it because of the tone not because of a lack of facts or misinformation and these aren't shills here. They are as involved in the communities of Ohio particularly Fitrakis as anyone period. The man is passionate because he's involved and has vested his life into uncovering truth.

 

[swolejah]

http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingstuff.12204011

Not sure how to host pics yet on another site.