# I Remember some were saying Election 2004 was stolen... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 6, 2005, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-some-were-saying-election-2004-was-stolen/298039 "2005-04-06T14:47:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2005, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-some-were-saying-election-2004-was-stolen/298039/261 "2005-04-23T22:51:32Z")
My comment was really focused on your hypothesis that there was NOT a nationwide conspiracy, but there were mulitple, unconnected, efforts in battleground states. If this were indeed the case, then we MUST see poll/tally discrepencies in the affected states, that we DO NOT see in unaffected states. This is simply not the case, discrepencies appear in many states that would never be considered battleground, like MA, VT and SC. Your hypothesis does not explain why these states had variations similar to OH, nor does it explain why the US as a whole had a large difference. The battleground states had variations barely any different than the national average, that is not suggestive of a targeted attack. You cannot ignore these facts, they are part of the equation and likely provide clues as to why there were variations in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2005, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-some-were-saying-election-2004-was-stolen/298039/262 "2005-04-23T23:53:12Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Indeed. I recall accounts of precincts in New Mexico where a lot of the people have to drive a long way to the polling places having significant undercounts. We’re supposed to believe that people drive dozens if not scores of miles to vote but express no opinion on the presidency. Well, I live in New Mexico and I"m unsure what you are getting at. It was certainly close here, but then it was close here last time as well. It could have gone either way…and in the end it was a coin flip. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Hazel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e56c9b/32.png) [@Hazel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hazel)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-some-were-saying-election-2004-was-stolen/298039/263 "2005-05-04T18:57:46Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > My comment was really focused on your hypothesis that there was NOT a nationwide conspiracy, but there were mulitple, unconnected, efforts in battleground states. If this were indeed the case, then we MUST see poll/tally discrepencies in the affected states, that we DO NOT see in unaffected states. > > This is simply not the case, discrepencies appear in many states that would never be considered battleground, like MA, VT and SC. Your hypothesis does not explain why these states had variations similar to OH, nor does it explain why the US as a whole had a large difference. The battleground states had variations barely any different than the national average, that is not suggestive of a targeted attack. > > You cannot ignore these facts, they are part of the equation and likely provide clues as to why there were variations in the first place. Well, an alternate theory would be that the mulitple, unconnected, efforts were _not_ confined to the battleground states. The most likely motive for such efforts in non-battleground states would have been to raise Bush’s nationwide total, to give him as high a popular vote total as possible. ---
**Author:** ![Hazel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e56c9b/32.png) [@Hazel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hazel)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-some-were-saying-election-2004-was-stolen/298039/264 "2005-05-04T19:13:09Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Well, I live in New Mexico and I"m unsure what you are getting at. It was certainly close here, but then it was close here last time as well. It could have gone either way…and in the end it was a coin flip. > > -XT I think he’s talking about ballots that showed no vote for President – ballots that included votes for all or most of the other offices listed, but with “President” left blank. I agree that it’s hard to believe that more than a very, very few people would turn out to vote in a Presidential election but fail to cast a vote for any Presidential candidate. It’s especially implausible that people who had to go to a more than average amount of trouble to vote (long drive to the polls, long wait in line, etc.) would do this. I know that there are always some who want to send a “none of the above” message – but leaving the “President” space blank is _not_ an effective way of doing this, as it’s likely to be ascribed to either voter error or fraud. To indicate that you don’t like either of the two major party candidates, all your need to do is select a minor party candidate. And the best way to send a message that you don’t like _any_ of the choices offered you is to write in Donald Duck or someone of his ilk. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-some-were-saying-election-2004-was-stolen/298039.md?page=13)