Bricker: * I don’t think I’ve ever had a dispute on these boards with anyone whose opinion I respect concerning the credibility of any source.*
Well, you seem to be quarreling with Hazel and 2sense over the sources in the OP. I don’t know if that means that you’re saying you don’t respect their opinions. In any case, I for one would like to know how you react to the mainstream sources that report voting irregularities. Not massive fraud; not evil GOP conspiracies; but voting irregularities.
If there’s nothing there, I’d like you to explain why these news stories are all mistaken. If there is something there, I don’t see why commondreams.org shouldn’t talk about it.
Bricker:No one here is seriously defending a theory of massive election-stealing conspiracies? Really? Even pantom?
Oh, was pantom being serious about a thirty-two-year tradition of vote fraud in Ohio? I kind of figured that the Nixon campaign reference was some comic relief.
No, pantom was being quite serious. What happened thirty-two years ago could quite easily have happened again, especially given that this was for all the marbles, whereas my example was from a mere primary. Kerry I’m quite sure gave up on even trying to figure it out because he already knew what the outcome would be if it got to the Supreme Court.
To think otherwise is to be naive beyond words.
I don’t know if pantom even understands why the evidence presented is completely irrelevant or not, but it’s to arguments like these that I feel like the “BWAHAHA” approach is sufficient.
I understand why you would think it irrelevant. It’s for that reason that I haven’t followed the situation closely. Because I understand that what you and your fellows think is relevant bears only the most tangential relationship to the real world and how it works. So why bother?
I bring it up for those who have enough experience with how the world works to know that old habits don’t change, that politics is in fact dirty, and that not everything that can be known about the world resides between the pages of a law book or a geometry text.
I agree totally that elections must be as free from problems as possible and run by the letter of the law.
Of course, when I mentioned this as a problem, I was immediately challenged by one of the leading liberal lights of the board.
You said before that you were “mystified by the widespread assumption that ‘whatever may have gone wrong cannot possibly have effected the outcome’ and I am mystified by the twin assumption that therefore, ‘whatever may have happened doesn’t matter; it should just be ignored’”.
Well, the widespread assumption you refer to has at least some adherants on your side. Perhaps you should work on them.
I take the position that fradulent and inaccurately tallied votes are an evil, in and of themselves, regardless of whether it would make a difference. Some of you on this board work yourselves into a tizzy over people who download Britney Spears songs on Kazaa, even in instances where it would make no difference in Britneys bank statement. Why? Because the assumption is that copyright infringement is an evil regardless of whether it actually causes economic damages, which is why we must throw the book at copyright infringers, actively search for them and “smoke them from their caves” (AKA their parents basements).
Bricker isn’t arguing with me about anything. He never does so far as I and the search function can recall. Apparently I’m not one of the leftists who has earned his respect. The only times I do remember him noticing my existence was when he offered a clarification of a statement I made to another poster and when he inquired about the strength of my opposition to judicial activism.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1118-30.htm
Hearing in Ohio Voting Puts 2004 Election in Doubt
Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman
Article picked up from the Columbus Free Press
(Hearing held; many testifed re cases of vote suppression.)
I don’t know why few (not none, but few) in the mainstream media are covering this, but I think this article shows that there is something to cover, if they ever decide to pay some attention.
I say “not none” because of Keith Olberman’s coverage.
I’d forgotten what a great job Olbermann did in covering this. Thanks for reminding me.
Of course, Olbermann doesn’t exist in the reality of people who respond to stuff like this with bwahaha.
As if he were the last word on who’s reasonable around here. Truly ridiculous.
Yes, well… good luck with all of this. I’m sure the mighty forces of journalistic integrity and accurate reporting will need to take notes from the "great job" Keith did.
I’ve gone on record (in the pit) bitching about the inflation of some of these “election fraud” claims, so it’s not that I buy these horror stories hook, line, and sinker. But as reasonable people, how could we not care that some voters (of both parties) through no fault of their own, hit snags in their attempts to cast their vote?
The fact that these problems are being discussed amid hysterical cries of “stolen election!” do not make them less true. The fact is, sometimes you don’t know how systems work until you have millions of people processed through them. 2004’s General Election gave us ample real-time evidence that we’ve got some problems to fix. I’m not so naive as to believe we’ll ever have a perfect system, but we ought to strive to solve as many as the known problems as possible. That effort should be bipartisan or, more preferably, nonpartisan.
If there are LEGITIMATE problems, we should certainly take them as lessons learned and attempt to fix them so they don’t recur. I absolutely agree.
However, when they are being discussed amid hysterical cries of “stolen election!” separating the wheat from the chaff becomes a bit problematic. It was in response to this problem that I said it wasn’t worth the time.
From the Fitrakis/Wasserman article listed first:
Now, does this describe anything actionable? “I was told the standard is to have 1 voting machine per 100 registered voters.” I have no idea who told this pastor that little fact, but it doesn’t connect with any official standard I’ve been able to find. In my own precinct here in Northern Virginia – an affluent area – we have 1,120 registered voters and four machines. This is an example of nonsense – some fictitious “standard” that was not met.
WHAT??!?!
An appeal to emotion, and nothing of relevance except that voting lines were long.
Voter intimidation – because city workers are trying to stop people from parking on the grass.
And so forth and so on.
If you, or anyone, would like to compile a list of actual problems that should be taken seriously, I’m all ears. I am unwilling to wade through complaints such as the above on the chance that there will be a meritorious one hidden in there like a pearl in an oyster.
Maybe that would make an interesting–have people report real problems they saw, not just things they read about on a website, or things that were misreported by activists breathlessly filling out incident reports.
I’ve got a few, being as I was at the polls all day, but it seems something of a hijack to put them here, as the original thread was about the general attitude towards problems.
Well, I can’t speak for anyone else, but when the OP’s supporting data consists of a list whose first three problems are nonsense, my attitude is not going to be sympathetic. Share what you personally saw and believe to be serious: I’m absolutely willing to listen.
Hazel, I think that most people believe some level of error - intentional or unintentional - is unavoidable in any human endeavor, and that any attempt which sets perfect accuracy as its benchmark is necessarily doomed to failure. It’s human nature…if one loophole is closed, sneaky people find others. If actual laws are broken, the perpetrators should be prosecuted, but that doesn’t require more laws. If there’s a 99.99 % level of confidence in a system, attempts to address the other 1% will not only fall short (it’ll leave you with a 99.999 % level of confidence or something) but will also be costly.
I mean, let’s examine the biggest screw-up of the 2000 election - the “Butterfly Ballots” in Palm Beach County. By all accounts, it would seem that reasonable precautions had been taken for people to understand the ballot. The “Butterfly” design was necessary to allow for large printing to accommodate the vision-impaired, it was published in the local newspapers with invitation for comment. Yet no one could force people to not ignore those printed previews of the ballot. No one could predict that arrows would be hard to follow…and I’m not accusing those voters of necessarily being stupid, I’ll allow for whatever excuse they’d give, it’s still not something anyone would have predicted. No one can even be 100% certain how many ballots were punched wrongly. People’s memory, affected by post-election publicity resulted in more Palm Beach County residents claiming they mistakenly punched Buchanan than the actual number of Buchanan votes! The problem, while quite likely present, was definitely inflated. Was this really a reason to think “the system is broken”?
Is it important to have as accurate a count as possible? No one will argue against this. However, many people can accept a good-faith attempt at as accurate a count as possible, and assume that sporadic reports of error or fraud are unavoidable and do not represent a driving need for systemic overhaul.
cmkeller’s example is a good one. If someone brought up the Butterfly Ballot as an example of fraud, I’d laugh. It was designed by a Democrat and published ahead of time. No one complained about the design then.
Now, if you brought it up in the lessons-learned category, as an example of an unforeseen problem that should be kept in mind for the future, I’d absolutely agree.
Stop right there - the concern concern isn’t over screwups, but outright fraud and disenfranchisement. Screwups cancel out, election-rigging does not. You might not have noticed, but there wasn’t any outcry over finding a way to correct the Palm Beach problem after the fact. The voters were allowed to vote, and vote they did. The “biggest” problem in Florida before the closing of the polls was the removal from the voting rolls of some tens of thousands of black voters, and the “biggest” problem afterward was the refusal of the Bush campaign / FL state officers (same organization, in effect) to complete counting the votes that were cast. Maybe you heard about that stuff?
That’s only possible if the reports of error or fraud result in roughly-balanced alterations in the totals, and if “sporadic” is defined as “of insufficient magnitude to affect the identity of the winner”. If you believe that both of those conditions were satisfied in FL in 2000, I’m disappointed in you. And why, for instance, do you lump fraud in with error? Do you suggest that we should accept fraud with the same indifference with which we accept error?