I don’t get it. I’ll still be anti-incumbent. What’ll you be?
Well said.
I’ll go even further. I think the survival of an honest conservative philosophy is essential to our democracy. Truly, one of the reasons I oppose Bush is he is royally fucking over the Republican party. Ironically, I think the GOP will best recover its sense of self, remember its roots, and most effectively repair the damage that has been done to it far more quickly if the GOP loses the presidency this time around. The short term loss would be long term gain; it would prompt the GOP to get its shit together again, remember to seek the good for the country and not mere power, and the country would be much better for it.
What exactly am I looking at there? How is that ballot to be marked by the voter? The left-hand side appears to be a white page with “1-3” in the UL corner. The right-hand side appears to be a yellow card with “TO BE FILLED IN BY ELECTION BOARD ONLY” printed at the bottom. There seems to be white space b/t the page and the card.
Are you saying that voters in this county are confronted with something that looks like this in the booth?
Btw, others in Ohio perceive just the reverse happening: http://static.act04.org/act/paperstock.htm
One thing’s for sure – the worms are coming out of the woodwork in the swing states.
I believe what you’re looking at is the ‘butterfly ballot’ however I could be mistaken. The places I’ve lived have all been lever machines, so that’s something I’ve not viewed in person. It looks like a clusterfuck begging to happen, though.
I would like to know where electoral-vote.com got that image.
Upon further inspection, it seems to be one of those multi-page ballots with staggered page widths so that columns of check boxes are revealed as you progress.
Certainly, the colors have been added to the image and do not appear on the ballot itself.
What’s interesting is that the choices in the image (left) are numbered top to bottom: 6, 10, 2, 4. The corresponding arrows point to boxes 6, 10, 12, 14.
It is unlikely that such an odd numbering order on the left side would be adopted. No doubt, choices “2” and “4” are actually choices “12” and “14”.
The question that remains is: Is there a typo on the ballot, or has this image been altered by whiting over the digit “1” in the boxes for the lower 2 choices?
My guess is that the latter is more likely true, given the level of scrutiny that goes into printing ballots, but I have no evidence.
Those ballots work quite well, actually. You have to realize that they are inserted into a device such that you punch through one selection corresponding to your candidate. The device limits your viewing of the massive number of punch choices and makes it pretty clear which one corresponds to which candidate.
I imagine the “to be filled in…” verbiage only applies to the presinct identification blanks at the bottom of the ballot.
Btw, electoral-vote.com identifies this as an “absentee ballot”. If that’s true – I have no idea how accurate this Web site is – it would not be inserted into a machine.
The text on the left says:
And obviously, the GW/DC #4 spot is way off from their names (next to #14), while the JK/JE spot is conveniently right next to the proper name. Suspect. Hey, it could be a printing error. We had those in Michigan. But until I get evidence to the contrary, this smacks of rigging the ballot.
So, you think it’s a good idea, in the absence of evidence, to assume ballot rigging rather than “a printing error” – without even mentioning the possibility that the the image itself is bogus?
This despite the fact that ballot rigging is much more difficult than whiting out a couple of digits in an image using PhotoShop. Despite the fact that the Web site posting the image gives no background or source information. Despite the fact that the image has already been PhotoShopped to some extent (the colored squares).
And, now that you point it out, despite the fact that the Web site posting the image identifies it as an “absentee ballot” while the text in the image instructs voters to “punch the hole beside the number for the set of candidates of your choice”, which is not usually done with absentee ballots.
Come back when you’ve turned on your brain.
:: Waits ::
:: Waits some more ::
:: Takes long vacation; returns to waiting ::
:: Retires on Social Security pittance ::
:: Gives it up and goes looking for Godot ::
I don’t know about most, but at least some absentee ballots do make you punch holes. When I was going to college in Virginia, it was that way.
Re: the OP, I don’t think many intelligent Democrats seriously believe that Republicans are evil (at least not Republicans in general). Of course, what people actually think and what they say when venting their frustrations are often not the same thing.
Also, some of the ways in which Republicans differ from Democrats on specific issues make the Republicans seem not very compassionate from the Democratic viewpoint. Not evil, but just a little coldhearted. At the risk of making a ridiculous generalization, Republicans seem to put a somewhat higher priority on everyone getting what they’ve earned than Democrats do, whereas Democrats seem to put a higher priority on everyone having at least a minimum standard of living. For instance, as a liberal, I’d support a tax increase for the rich if it would help feed the hungry. Even if money is being taken from someone who’s worked hard for it (but can afford to give it up) and given to someone who isn’t even making an effort to get a job, I would be OK with it because I care more about everyone, even lazy people, being able to afford food, clothes, shelter, etc. I’m not saying everyone should be at the same level, or even close to the same level, but if we have to skim a little off the top to get everyone up to the minimum, so be it.
Conservatives to whom I’ve presented this few generally seem to think it’s nuts. Is it that surprising that this sometimes leads me to think that their compassion for the poor is less than mine? (I’m not saying my compassion for the poor is where it should be. I mean, I have digital cable and high speed Internet while people down the block from me are sleeping on the sidewalk. But I’m doing better than some people. I can honestly say I’d vote to increase my own taxes without hesitation if I knew the money would go to helping the needy. And yeah, there’s always charitable donations, but clearly that’s not doing the job since there are still poor people in this country. Taxes are like charity that selfish jerks have to pay too. Except they don’t do anything for poverty when all the money gets spent on war. :mad: )
Getting back to my point (since I’ve kind of digressed) the only issue I can think of off the top of my head where the conservative position might look more compassionate is abortion, and only to people who genuinely believe that aborting a fetus is killing a baby. Obviously, pro-choice people like me don’t share that belief.
Just to clarify, I don’t mean to say that liberals are more compassionate than conservatives. I have no way of knowing if this is true. I’m just trying to explain why, as a liberal, it sometimes feels like conservatives aren’t as compassionate. Which, I think, is where some of this “evil” business comes from.
A related point – on many issues, the conservative position is what I would characterize as the more violent one. Conservatives want to spend more on war, I want to spend less. Conservatives want less gun control, I want more. Conservatives support the death penalty, I think it’s deplorable.
(Again, abortion is a possible exception, but only if you believe certain things.)
So, is it that surprising that it sometimes feels, to a liberal, that conservatives are “pro-violence?”
I’ll go ahead and admit that I hate George W. Bush. It galls me that I have to vote against my own party. I agree largely with gobear – although I don’t identify myself as “conservative”, I do see most of his shortlist as preferable national policy.
Kerry’s a damn liar. His position on the first Iraq war was, I believe, dead wrong. Etc, etc…
Sadly, Bush makes Kerry look like a proverbial Honest Abe by comparison, and doesn’t restrict his lying to the campaign trail. It was the Condi-can’t-testify-because-it’s-illegal bullshit that finally broke it for me.
The man makes his decisions Bay-of-Pigs style, and his attempts to concentrate power in the executive will haunt us if he succeeds.
What makes Dubya supremely dangerous is his belief that he’s doing God’s work, that he’s been selected to carry out God’s will to raise up this nation.
That blatantly expansionist speech at the convention should scare the jehosephat out of anyone – unless you’re one of the zealots who feel Armageddon is inevitable so the sooner the better.
I wish our choice were between, say, John McCain and Sam Nunn.
I saw the link to the image over at Fark. The image itself is hosted at electoral-vote.com, which is run by a lefty (albiet a suprisingly balanced one when it comes to his map), so I don’t know if he’d be too keen to put up some freeper photoshop job.
Given the various tricks and run-arounds being employed by the Democrats this year, I am just about beyond giving them the benefit of the doubt. (Though I will still accept that this is just a big snafu, when and if some proof is presented.)
Hey, like I said, it very well could be a prank or honest mistake, but that has not been conclusively shown, so I am going with ‘dirty Dem trick’ until proven wrong. As for the purported photoshoping, those colors very well could be on the ballot; I don’t see why that would be an impossibility.
Doesn’t seem very rare to me. Gosh, I don’t suppose you have a cite to back your assertion? Or is your gut-feeling supposed to be good enough for me?
See? That’s what I get for being nice. Fuck that. I am curious why you feel the need to waive this ballot issue away? Golly, if the the ballots in Florida during the 2000 elections were such a problem, surely anyone interested fair elections would want to see ballots that are simple to use and difficult to make mistaken choices on, right?
Point taken re punching absentee ballots. Never seen one done that way, and I spoke without looking into the actual prevalence.
I haven’t waived anything away. That should be obvious from my above posts.
I’m skeptical of both sides in this election, but I’m extremely skeptical of Web sites that do not provide attribution, so I’m not yet convinced that there is any “ballot issue” here at all.
All you’ve provided is an image. I’ve looked at it, and it’s obvious as balls on a dog that any kid with a computer could white out a couple of 1’s and produce what I’m seeing there. Put the 1’s back in, and everything’s hunky-dory.
To me, that’s not enough to go making accusations of election fraud, a very serious charge.
As I said before, it’s possible that there’s a misprint (which may even have been intentional); however “my guess” is that it’s “more likely” that the image has been tampered with.
And I stand by my assessment that, given what we’re looking at, a decision to assume “rigging the ballot” until some “evidence to the contrary” appears is a mindless decision.
No need to be nice. I don’t care if you like me.
My main problem with that linked-to Cuyahoga County ballot was the party designation of Peroutka and Badnarik:
"Other-Party Candidate"? What the fuck is that? Like the only REAL parties are the Repubs and the Dems?
What is this **Other-Party ** and how did they manage to get TWO different presidential candidates in one election?
Looking at the image in Photoshop, I’d say it is almost certainly altered. There are tell-tale artifacts in front of both the 2 and 4 that suggest they were once 12 and 14.