The problem is not counting every vote, it’s counting every VOTER. A registration deadline is designed to prevent a flood of partisans from coming into a jurisdiction and claiming residency just in time for the election. It also gives authorities time to verify elegibility.
Addresses are verified and people are asked to vote in the precinct in which they live so someone can’t claim multiple addresses and vote multiple times.
Identification is verified for the same reason.
Making yourself aware of the deadline and process for registering to vote is not a difficult process.
And asking someone to produce identification and requiring them to vote at the polling place designated for their home address does not constitute intimidation, no matter how politically expedient it might be to claim otherwise.
No. I’m demanding that there be more than a mere scintilla of evidence before starting an investigation. In other words, no - no investigation predicated on, “Well, it mighta happened!” Obviously I’m not requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt before undertaking an investigation… but if you were a cop, you couldn’t just go to your captain and explain you were investigating Joe Blow for murder because he’s got shifty eyes. You’d need to show your captain SOMETHING to make the caes that your time and energy were best spent investigating Joe Blow.
I demanded there be more than a mere scintilla of evidence before starting an invasion. In other words, no investigation predicated on, “Well, it mighta happened!” Obviously I’m requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt before undertaking an invasion… if you were a cop, you couldn’t just go to your captain and explain you were invading Iraq because Saddam’s got shifty eyes. You’d need to show your captain SOMETHING to make the case that your troops lives and taxpayer’s dollars were best spent invading Iraq.
And there was evidence before the invasion happened. It turned out not to be as solid as first thought, of course. But it wasn’t merely that Saddam had shifty eyes.
Oh please, stop obfuscating. Not as “solid as first thought” my ass. Try calling what your own Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, calls it:
Perhaps the problems you seem to be having with your ass’s solidity have you confused. The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction never said anything using the words “dead wrong”. Did they? No, that comes from an article to which you’ve linked describing the report, in less than flattering terms.
A fair bit of the NIE[National Intelligence Estimate]s from the timeframe have been released. Could you perhaps point to this evidence? I remember reading it at the time and seeing it containing a lot of suspicion and virtually no confirmation. Specific attempts were made to send UN Inspectors to get such confirmation and they turned up blank. So what made the pre-war intelligence speculating bad stuff happening in Iraq different from current speculations that bad stuff happened in Ohio? Or is it your contention that the NIE, un-confirmed by on-the-ground Inspectors, was sufficient? Does the fact that portions of it were actively disproven by said Inspectors change anything?
By the way, if we are going to actually examine the first-hand evidence from Inspector’s reports and NIE’s we should move that discussion to another thread, just out of politeness. At the moment it is still vaguely on-topic because it ties in with the level of proof required to take action on various issues. If the possible election fraud(a serious charge) does not warrant investigation based on the suspicions of professional statistics analysts, then how can the possible buildup of WMD(also a serious charge) warrant an invasion based on suspicions of the CIA?
What are you saying here. Are you saying that those who allege cheating must be wrong, because they have not taken their case to court? But they have taken their case to court!
In California, several lawsuits challenged the state’ right to use machines made by Diebold. They succeeded, and Diebold was kicked out after it was proven that the company had been massively dishonest in selling those machines to the state. (cite) More lawsuits are in progress.
In Lucas County, Ohio, they’ve forced the suspension of four employees from the Board of Elections over errors in the 2004 election. It’s not yet clear exactly what the errors were. (cite)
In Volusia County, Florida, a lawsuit is currently in progress. (cite). The defendants have thus far stonewalled and refused to provide requested information, or provided incomplete information. (cite) The plaintiffs appear to have evidence of Diebold deliberately leaving security holes in their systems, such that the machines could be tampered with. Diebold has refused to provide evidence that would confirm or deny the charges.
After all, we all know that Reagan couldn’t have won 49 states back in 1984, that had to be fixed…
Bush winning in 1988 against Dukakis? Nah, had to be stolen.
In the Senate, you’re certain that the following races were stolen, right?
Alabama - Richard Shelby won with 67% (more than a two to one margin. But surely that was fraudulant because stealing is the only possible way that Republicans end up in office.
Arizona - John McCain won with over 76%. But obviously the 900,000 vote difference was a fraud because stealing is the only possible way that Republicans end up in office.
Iowa - Chuck Grassley won with 70%+. But we all know that Iowan Republicans slipped the extra 600,000 votes in there illegaly because stealing is the only possible way that Republicans end up in office.
Ohio - George Vonovich won with 63%. But certainly we all know what happened in Ohio! Vonovich really lost but he’s in because stealing is the only possible way that Republicans end up in office.
17 Republicans won in the House because they ran unopposed - but I’m sure that they must have cheated in receiving any votes because, as we all know, stealing is the only possible way that Republicans end up in office.
:rolleyes:
It appears you owe both, myself and my ass, an apology. Had you been a little more attentive while reading my cite, you might have notice the words “dead wrong” encapsulated in quotation marks – surely you must know what theose mean? However, as per ususal, in your zeal to dismiss anything critical of your idols, you simply chose to dismiss my source.
So, once again with feeling, not as “solid as first thought” my obviously smart ass. Try "dead wrong."
I worked on the Kerry campaign. The reason we conceded is because the other guy got more people to come out and vote. At least according to our own counts of things.
Do I think there were voting irregularities that could have been big enough to turn the tables? Maybe. But even if so the problem is, contesting them generally cannot really overturn the outcome of the election: it only impacts the legal culpability of those who caused them. Sometimes, as when the Republicans hired companies to jam the lines of Democratic GOTV operations by robo-calling into our phone bank numbers, its worth going after them. But it doesn’t change the vote count, it just gets certain people thrown in jail (and usually not for very long: they come out, get hired by the Republicans again, and try to dream up new schemes: taking one for the team is a great way to earn yourself a promotion, though not as good as not getting caught at all).
A) Declare certain and absolute confidence in everything you’ve said, including the proven incorrect statement, and start a shooting war in which even his best friends won’t back him up?
B) Hold back and re-consider that since you have been proven wrong at least once that maybe, just maybe, you’re wrong about other things as well and since the power of resurrection is unavailable, war can be put off a bit?
Because that’s the position George Bush found himself in during March of 2003 when Hans Blix and the UNMOVIC team reported their findings. The role of the CIA was played by Bricker, and the role of the UNMOVIC was played by Zakalwe, et. al.
The asterisk above refers to some of their reports.