In what way did you think my opinion of you conflicts with my world view?
The OP asks the question “Is the election method/procedure a partisan issue?” Of course it is. Most things about the election are partisan issues.
If you are alleging that no, the election method is not a partisan issue, I point to the fact that in 2000, ballots that were perfectly acceptable when Democrats expected to win suddenly became unacceptable when they lost.
For heaven’s sake, read the thread. BrainGlutton agrees emphatically that it is a partisan issue. Because Democrats lost. But, for some reason, you don’t need to Pit him. I assume you also believe he is calling you a liar.
I find it mildly surprising that a poster with a history like yours takes such offense when someone refuses to accept without question that partisanship plays no role in your latest tirade.
For all I know, you may honestly believe you are the most fair-minded poster on the SDMB. If you do, you’re mistaken. IMO.
Did you think I was under some obligation to disregard practically everything you ever posted, and pretend you could be taken seriously? I don’t think I am, so I won’t bother to do so.
:shrugs:
If you want to change my opinion of you, start acting differently. There are flaming liberals on the SDMB who I respect. Compare yourself to them, if it concerns you so much.
It should not be a partisan issue. If errors in voting were truly random, then they would not tend to benefit one side or another. It is when the errors are not truly random that one needs to be concerned. After the Florida debacle of 2000, we’re all quite naturally suspicious. As mentioned, when the head man of a voting machine manufacturer makes public his desire to help one candidate, alarms should be going off. When the brother of a candidate is doing all in his power to ensure that no paper trails be made in the next election, alarms should be going off. Sadly, they seem only to be going off on one side of the aisle.
Exactly what is the impetus behind touch screen voting? Besides Diebold, who benefits from it? So we get the results in minutes after closing. Is that worth the risk of manipulation?
It is not your opinion of me which conflicts with your worldview but my avowed priorities. I say that the integrity of the democratic system is more important to me than my partisanship. The fact that I really believe that is what conflicts with your worldview and why you feel the need to call me a liar when I state that belief.
It’s not a partsan issue to me, or to several others in this thread. If you want to call partsanship on the DNC, whatever,I don’t care, it’s your opinion and I’m not a even a Democrat, but when you start calling me a liar about my own beliefs, then you get my dander up. I’m not a liar, I have no hidden agenda and my partsanship is right out there for everyone to see. However my partisanship is not as important to me as getting an accurate count. That is the God’s honest truth. It’s not worth winning an election to me if I can’t win it fairly. I can take losing. I can survive it. The thing about elections is that there’s always another one. But if the voting system itself is compromised then my own political advocacy becomes meaningless.
And how would calling for a paper trail NOW help my side win? How is wanting simple accuracy a partsan issue?
Disingenuous. Nobody knew anyting about the Florida ballots until after the election. I didn’t look at them beforehand. I didn’t OK them. I didn’t know there was a problem with them. We DO know there is a problem with Diebold. Regardless of party allegiences, you should be concerned about them too if you want a fair count.
The Democrats didn’t lose, they got cheated. They don’t want to get cheated again. Their not asking for a special advantage, they’re asking for an accurate count. Do you want an accurate count or don’t you? Yes or no?
You’ll have to explain to me why wanting an accurate count helps my side more than yours, otherwise a partsan motive makes no sense. It’s like accusing me of saying I only like vanilla ice cream because I’m a liberal. It’s a logical non-sequitur.
I don’t believe I’m non-partisan, if that’s what you mean by fair minded, but I do believe that some things are more important than partisanship…and you’ll forgive me if I snicker at your own hypocritical charge of unfairness seeing as how you happen to be one of the most lockstep, partisan Republicans on the SDMB.
Please explain wht you should be taken any more seriously, given your own posting history, Mr. Objective.
I have no desire or use for your good opinion (and you might want to take a look at some of the more intellectually honest conservatives around here as long as you’re in the mood for throwing stones at glass houses) all I want is an honest debate with evasive, hypocritical ad hominems, and without being called a liar when I express a personal opinion.
I don’t follow your reasoning here, Bob. If there is any indication that one party has been rigging, or is planning to rig, the system at the other party’s expense, then that is and should be a partisan issue.
Shodan, please bear in mind, if you post on this board, and in particular in this forum, you yourself are part of the “chattering classes.”
I thought it was well presented in previous posts: the head of Diebold is committed to delivering Ohio to George Bush. Jeb Bush is dead set against creating paper trails for electronic voting. Then there’s Jeb and the whole released felon voting restoration fiasco. Jeb doesn’t try very hard to hide his agenda- it’s to deliver Florida by whatever hook or crook he needs. And that the head of Diebold to talk about delivering Ohio is akin to the umpires union vowing to deliver the World Series to the Yankees.
Someone is always trying to manipulate election results. That’s why the process has to be as transparent and verifiable as possible. Anything less creates an increase in unhealthy ambiguity.
Have politics in this country really gotten to the point where the integrity of the Democratic system doesn’t matter as long as it’s your party that’s winning? I hope to God it hasn’t come to this.
That’s what our position was less than four years ago when the Bushites were adamant about not counting votes before their FL state campaign chairwoman could certify the results. Even then, their standard retort was that we just wanted Gore to win by any means necessary. It was a lazy slander then and it’s a lazy slander now.
Not my world view, just my view of your motives. And FTR, you are the one assuming that I am calling you a liar.
As a matter of fact, that is bullshit. The ballots that were allegedly so confusing to Democratic voters were vetted in advance of the election by both the Republican and Democratic parties. Cite.
Precisely so. You didn’t know there was a problem with them - until Gore lost. Before that, no problem.
There has been nothing evasive about anything I have posted in this thread. If you consider it an ad hominem to be told that I disbelieve you, your skin is quite a bit thinner than it ought to be considering your habits.
And, FWIW, anyone who supports Bush gets treated pretty much the same. Sam Stone, Mr. Moto, anyone else - they all get exactly what you are trying to give me. I will certainly grant you that those two in particular generally surpass me in the quality of their posts. But in the level of sniping, drive-bys, pile-ons and accusations of dishonesty from the Bush-bashers - it’s a wash.
Your definition of “intellectual honesty” means nothing more than “a willingness to attack Bush”.
You expressed a personal opinion. But when I did the same, you felt the need to Pit me. Yawn.
The solution to this is simple. Have each election district count their votes and report the results to the state. Have each state add up the district votes and report the results to whatever national vote-tallying office replaces the electoral college. Any disputes, investigations, and recounts can be confined either to a single state or a single district. There may well be a number of different contested results scattered around the country, but each one will be confined to a single state or district. You won’t have to recount the entire country. And, just as now, the only states or districts that will be contested will be the ones that have a close election.
It isn’t necessarily Republican vs. Democrat, but more Bushite against anyone with the nerve of wanting a fair shot at winning. (Just like the Texas redistricting.) In California the crappy Diebold machines got de-certified, and so far as I know Arnold never objected.
Maybe Shodan will be a bit more worried about security when the votes are counted and Linus Torvalds becomes president.
Huh? Are you talking about the butterfly ballot in West Palm Beach? That was far from being the only problem in Florida.
But the way you put it interests me. You say the Dems “made a mistake” when they approved the ballot. You seem to be saying that the Republicans sneaked a misleading ballot past the dumb Dems. In other words, the Republicans came up with a ballot designed to mislead Gore supporters into accidently voting for Buchanan, and the Dems were not smart enough to prevent this. I didn’t think this was something the Repubs were admitting. Thanks, Shodan, for coming clean!
He developed the kernel of an operating system that is secure and able to be inspected by others for bugs and insecurity. The idea is that his OS would be a good candidate to run the machines but that he’d sell out anyway and just rig it to give himself the election despite being Finnish.
Most sensible suggestion I’ve heard yet – but it would take a constitutional amendment. (Then again, so would abolishing the electoral college, which you seem to assume.) BTW, the word is “precinct,” not “district”; look at your voting-registration card, if you have one.
Most sensible suggestion I’ve heard yet – but it would take a constitutional amendment. (Then again, so would abolishing the electoral college, which you seem to assume.) BTW, the word is “precinct,” not “district”; look at your voting-registration card, if you have one.
Well, it is and it isn’t. Afaik the official position of both parties is pretty much to ignore this. The partisan position of the various sides seems to break down to make this a partisan issue at that level, mostly from the Democrats who are worried that the Republicans are trying to steal the election (and stole the election in 2000). However, again afaik, the official position of the Democrat party is to basically ignore this. Now, I could be wrong about this and they could be furiously trying to block electronic ballotting and being completely blocked by those evil Republicans, but if so I’m unaware of this official position. And as these people (especially the Democrats) have a serious stake in making the count as accurate as possible, until they DO start officially putting up a hue and cry my own position is: Move along, nothing to really see here.
Read the excerpt I posted above from Ronnie Dugger’s article in The Nation – both Senator Bill Nelson (D) and Rep. Robert Wexler (D) have taken stands in favor of verifiable paper trails for the voting machines – Wexler going so far as to file lawsuits in state and federal courts. And then there are the demands for a paper trail by such organizations as the ACLU and the Miami-Dade Reform Coalition, which are nonpartisan organizations but obviously concerned about cheating by the Reps, not the Dems. Meanwhile Gov. Bush and his appointed Sec of State, Glenda Hood, are adamantly resisting calls for a paper trail. So yes, it is a partisan issue in Florida.
Shodan: I’m curious as to your thoughts on this issue, given what you’ve said in this thread, and I’m going to try to ask my questions in as non-partisan a way as I can:
Do you believe that electronic voting machines in general are sufficently secure and reliable enough to vote with? What about Diebold machines in particular?
Do you think the weaker (or nonexistent) mechanism with current electronic voting machines for recounting is significant enough to warrant concern?
If someone in the general public expresses concern about either of the above, do you assume that (s)he is a Democrat? Do you believe that any Republicans are concerned? If not, why not?
Who?