jGilder wrote:A lot of people still don't realize or accept the fact that George didn't really win either election. The voter fraud in both cases is unprecidented in American presidential elections.
You folks have checks and balances in your system to allow wrongs, or perceived wrongs, to be addressed. In 2000, it ended up before the Supreme Court. Both sides were heard and a decision was rendered. Some might disagree with the decision, or even point out flaws in the system itself, but that's what you've got.
Actually the decision reversed all the precidents regarding the 14th Amendment -- that's why none of the justices signed their names to it. The recount was halted -- that's not democracy.
Jeferson wrote:Fast forward to 2004, and that system was still in place. Bush had a clear majority the second time around, and anyone who saw problems had avenues to pursue. There were no successful objections. The opportunity to challenge the results is gone. Long gone. To cry about it now is but sour grapes.
This is the typical response, but with an extremely divided Congress and the Republican's in control any reasonable investigation had no footing. If the American public were exposed to all of the facts regarding these elections serious questions would need to be answered. As long as these facts are kept from public view -- it looks like sour grapes. But that's all working out very well according to the strategy.
Tell us something.: I've picked up the tinwhistle again after several years, and have recently purchased a Chieftain v5 from Kerry Whistles that I cannot wait to get (why can't we beam stuff yet, come on Captain Kirk, get me my Low D!)
“First lesson: money is not wealth; Second lesson: experiences are more valuable than possessions; Third lesson: by the time you arrive at your goal it’s never what you imagined it would be so learn to enjoy the process” - unknown
jGilder wrote:She did object, and I watched her presentation on CSPAN. There were plenty of objections and ample evidence that voter fraud was a deciding factor.
Thanks. I finally took some time to look it up.
Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) interrupted the ritual roll call of each state's "certificate of electoral votes" in a joint session of Congress, contending that Ohio's results were not "regularly given." The Senate eventually voted 74 to 1 to overrule Boxer's objection, even though many Democrats defended her in floor speeches. The House voted 267 to 31 to override the objection, with no Republicans siding with Tubbs Jones. - Washington Post
jGilder wrote:A lot of people still don't realize or accept the fact that George didn't really win either election. The voter fraud in both cases is unprecidented in American presidential elections.
You folks have checks and balances in your system to allow wrongs, or perceived wrongs, to be addressed. In 2000, it ended up before the Supreme Court. Both sides were heard and a decision was rendered. Some might disagree with the decision, or even point out flaws in the system itself, but that's what you've got.
Fast forward to 2004, and that system was still in place. Bush had a clear majority the second time around, and anyone who saw problems had avenues to pursue. There were no successful objections. The opportunity to challenge the results is gone. Long gone. To cry about it now is but sour grapes.
Jef
Easy to say from a distance... difficult to get rolling in the timeframes allowed. There was *much* question both times, but also much deflection.
Now, well after the fact, we still have no vote verification ability in many areas, though much is in in the works. One thing folks from outside seem to foget is that this is one vast country, and even good ideas take a long time to implement, even when those who benefit from the public's ignorance and a slow moving system aren't fighting to interfere.
anniemcu
--- "You are what you do, not what you claim to believe." -Gene A. Statler
--- "Olé to you, none-the-less!" - Elizabeth Gilbert
--- http://www.sassafrassgrove.com
DaleWisely wrote:I have a different idea about Bush/Gore. I think the error of measurement on something as sprawling as a US presidential election is large enough that Bush/Gore was, for all practical purposes a tie. The Supreme Court shut it down and, in so doing, declared the winner.
The company that was hired by the Florida Elections Office was paid a few thousand dollars to carefully purge the State’s voter records every year of known felons who committed their crimes in Florida. According to Florida law this would bar them from voting. But everything changed when .Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris and Clay Roberts fired that company and then hired Data Base Technologies, (DBT) and paid them 4 million dollars to do the same job... supposedly. Why did it cost so much more? Because they were paid to use fraud in order to fix voter records thereby wrongly barring 22,000 voters. Then Jeb and Co. failed to count 20,000 more. Add that to the misread 27,000 ballots that John Bolton was seen with a screaming mob forcing his way in the door where the ballots were being counted. Katherine Harris finally ended that count and she was able to do what they had planned in order to insure Bush wins the state -- with the help of the Supreme Court’s unprecedented reversal of the 14th Amendment of course. Bush only won by 537 votes BTW. Disenfranchising around 50,000 votes with fraud doesn’t sound like an innocent tie that the Supreme Court needed to break to me.
Reminds me of all those military ballots that were never counted. Bad memories wellin' up, like Richard Daley and a buncha lawyers being sent down there by the DNC before a single vote was cast. Guess they wanted some Florida sun. On and on and on and on.....
Regarding the 2004 election, although I suspect there was a small amount of fraud on both sides, I don't think it was enough to affect the result of the election.
However, regarding the 2000 election, JGilder is right on. The Florida vote was systematically distorted by the fraudulent purging of "felons" from the voter rolls, which did, exactly as JGilder states, remove far more than enough legitimate voters from the lists to throw the election to Bush. This is a true fact, and has nothing to do with recounts, butterfly ballots, etc. It's the one very specific and provable fact that clearly threw the election to Bush. If you don't believe it, please research the matter in more detail for yourself.
