Could you, like, give us some specific examples? Because I’m really curious. What would you have expected to see in a thread like this 10 or 20 years ago, that you don’t see now?
Sorry to continue the hijack, but:
The link doesn’t contain any more information regarding their methodology, and the “99%” figure turns out to be the “probability that the government’s recount sample was not random”, not the probability of fraud. In the external references, the strongest direct conclusion is that the researchers were “unable to conclude that that there had been no manipulation of the votes”. They also propose a potential method of tampering which they claim the Carter Center would not have been able to detect. The CEPR has an article which seems to quite thoroughly debunk Hausmann and Rigobón’s paper, and in particular the latter claim of a tampering method.
Your remark about Carter not seeming impartial is a bit odd. Firstly, he’s not pulling things out of his arse; the election was certified by the Carter Center’s observer mission, who went to some lengths to verify the count and address the concerns raised afterwards (there is an invitational article in the Sep 4th issue of the Economist detailing the certification procedure, but the link will probably require subscription). An excerpt, however, regarding the alleged tampering:
In short, personal accusations against Mr. Carter come across as premature at best, and as nasty smears to a less forgiving eye. I’m at a loss to consider what motivation he could have to bolster Chavez, come to that. Unless “impartial” has now come to mean “disagrees with someone, somewhere.”
Not quite true. If you’re a felon and you’ve served your sentence, you can apply to get your rights, including voting rights, restored. But you have to apply to the Florida Board of Executive Clemency (http://www.state.fl.us/fpc/Clemency.htm) – which is the governor and his Cabinet sitting as a clemency board. The members are Governor Jeb Bush; Attorney General Charlie Crist; Chief Financial Officer Charles Gallagher; and Commissioner of Agriculture Charles Bronson. All Republicans. And restoring your rights is discretionary with them. 
An extremely good idea and I was glad to see we had ONE president who promoted energy conservation. Want to save energy and give OPEC a little poke where it hurts? Turn down the thermostat in the winter and throw on a sweater, preferably one made from natural fibers.
Pray, tell us how Motor Voter “got us into this mess.” As I recall, when I got my driver’s licence I had to show my birth certificate and through that the State of Illinois knows whether or not I am a citizen. For my voter’s registration (long before Motor Voter went into effect) all I had to show was…my driver’s licence.
Well, BrainGlutton, I think you’ve gotten your OP answered. Apart from impugning Carter, nobody’s offered a defense that Florida is meeting, or can be expected to meet, the requirements of a fair election by November.
I’m becoming more than disillusioned with the process. Right now I’m despondent.
Well, no. Because he wouldn’t have been in office by then, on account of having left in January '85.
.
Well, to be fair-Carter DID, at first, back the Shah, although I don’t think he do so very enthusiastically.
Still, Reagan was the one who started supporting Saddam in the first place.
Remember, also, that the Shah was a problem Carter inherited from his predecessors – specifically, from Eisenhower, who was president in 1953, when a coup orchestrated by U.S. and British intelligence services removed from power the democratically elected Prime Minister Muhammed Mussadegh (who had nationalized the British-owned Iranian oil industry) and restored the Shah to absolute power. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iran) When the Shah’s regime finally collapsed, there was no surviving liberal democratic movement of any importance in Iran, and the only organized political force ready to take the lead was Khomeini’s radical Islamic fundamentalist movement. It’s hard to see how Carter could have prevented this – just as it’s hard to see how any U.S. president will be able to prevent Saudi Arabia from going the same way if the House of Saud should fall.
Did he call them “Lucky duckies”?
I can’t remember. After all, it was waaaaaaaaay back in the 70s.
Don’t be so sure. Read post 34. U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Boca Raton) is suing the state to demand a verifiable paper trail on due process grounds. The case was dismissed, but has been reinstated on appeal.
Meanwhile, some citizens’ organizations are fighting for a paper trail, and/or planing to monitor the polls closely for irregularities – see http://www.verifiedvoting.org/, http://www.blackboxvoting.org/, Home - Common Cause Florida, and http://www.commoncause.org/news/default.cfm?ArtID=389. Don’t give up hope!
You’re being obscure-referenced by our friend rjung.
He’s referring to a 2002 Wall Street Journal editorial that called low-income taxpayers, as a class, “Lucky Duckies” because, as a class, their tax burden (at the time) represented only 4% of the federal income tax proceeds, whereas the top 1% earners, as a class, contributed 50% of the federal tax proceeds. They were so lucky that they are poor and only had to shoulder such a small share, they were “lucky duckies.” Here’s a Salon.com article covering the editorial and its repercussions.
The inanity of the logic is illustrated with insight by Ruebin Bolling in his series of alternative cartoons “Tom the Dancing Bug” by a continuing character named, not-so-coincidentally, “Lucky Ducky.” There are several archived here.
My hat’s off to rjung then. I can well remember what I felt at the time, but the specifics were just too long ago.
[quibble]Actually, that over 50% number is for the top 5% not the top 1%. (And, as you note these numbers of for the federal income tax only.)[/quibble]
He’s a nice old man who builds houses and certifies elections (neither of which is attributable to his Presidency).
I lived through 20% interest rates, wage & price controls, high unemployment and rationed gasoline. With the exception of the Egypt/Israeli accords and the Panama Canal return, there is nothing of substance to his presidency.
When you add his gift of a nuclear power plant to North Korea his career achievements are solidly in the negative column. The world is certainly NOT safer for his efforts.
As a former President, and someone who actively monitors election processes, Mr Carter’s opinion should carry some weight on the subject, were it not for the Venezuelan elections he certified. His credibility on the subject has been diminished by his own actions.
Jimmy Carter (aka “Malaise Forever”) is in no position to comment upon the state of Florida’s accomodation of voters. Yes, Florida has a huge population of elderly , near-blind voters. Yes, punched paper ballots require that you READ the ballot and CHECK the ballot. Was there FRAUD in the 2000 election? Yeah, sure…how about the Democrats who wanted to invalidate thousands of absentee ballots (from nilitary voters outside the country).
Carter should confine himself to building houses for winos and praying. He was such a disaster as a president that I have had enough of this creep.
PS: Does he still depend on his daughter Amy for advice?
And still the attacks continue on Carter without addressing the salient points of the OP. Is there no one on the right in the US with the remotest sense of integrity remaining? Address the actual points, please!
The *Straight Dope * once stood for something good. Regardless of political persuasion, the facts took precedence, everyone could look at the information available and comment on it rationally and sensibly, rather than spin irrelevant titbits of memory in a myriad of ways to attempt to blacken the messenger and obfuscate the actual point. If this is what The Straight Dope has truly become I’m quite ashamed to call myself a member. All I can hope is that, after November, sanity will return and it will once again regain the status it once had.
What a lovely opinion you have of Habitat for Humanity, which has probably done more to give low-income families the chance to own a home than any other program, government or private.
“Houses for winos”
shakes head sadly
Well, don’t you know? The ends justify the means, right? 
Tongue in cheek,
- Jinx
I thought I addressed some of that. Jimmy Carter will certify elections where fraud takes place (Like, say, Venezuela), and criticize other elections, apparantly according to political whim.
His credibility on this score, to my mind, is close to his credibility on economic and foreign policy concerns.