The Conyers Report

[annaplurabelle]

@Captain Amazing

It’s always about winning.

I’ll be more specific: It’s not about winning today.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

• Gandhi

[World_Eater]

@Bricker

Well, one of the complaints was that voting machines were allocated based on a given precinct’s last turnout, not on the number of registrations or the expected turnout this time. (Not sure how the “expected turnout” was divined; perhaps it was the same formula that decided how many younger cell phone users were not answering the polls).

In any event, the next election should allocate polls based on this one’s turnout, and that should go a long way towards solving the problem of too few voting machines.

Many of the other problems fall into the category of whining. The report complains about Blackwell’s “narrow interpretation” of the provisional ballot law that required provisional ballots to be cast from the correct precinct, but acknowledges that Blackwell’s interpretation was upheld by the Sixth Circuit. Bizarrely, the report acknowledges that the Sixth Circuit upheld Blackwell, but then quotes extensively from the lower court ruling that the Sixth Circuit overturned - and since the Supreme Court refused cert, the Sixth Circuit’s ruling is the law in that circuit. Like or dislike Blackwell’s interpretation, the fact of the matter is that the highest federal court ruled it was correct. So if we’re asking, “What about the next election?” then Blackwell’s rule will stand.

The report complains, legitimately, that Blackwell was being hypertechnical in enforcing a rule about 70 lb bond paper for voting applications, but Blackwell reversed this rule in late September. So if we’re asking, “What about the next election?” then this rule will no longer be a factor, if it ever was.

The report complains about the challenging tactics - trying to discover voters who registered with incorrect addresses. The report notes clearly that a federal district court found the tactics illegal. The Sixth Circuit also reversed that opinion, and the Supreme Court denied cert. (Hmmm… Mr. Conyers seems to quote extensively from court opinions that are not good law.) b]So if we’re asking, “What about the next election?” then the practice is legal and will stand.**

And so on and so on…

I agree with most of this. As long as any claims (from either side) are properly investigated I’m a happy person.

[Neurotik]

@annaplurabelle

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

• Gandhi

First you get the money, then you get the power, then you get the woman.

• Tony Montana

[Captain_Amazing]

@annaplurabelle

I’ll be more specific: It’s not about winning today.

It sort of is. It’s about stirring up enough shit against Bush so that his administration will be forced to respond to it and they’ll be distracted from pursuing their own agenda. The Republicans did the same sort of thing to Clinton. Of course, it was easier for them because they had Congress, but still, you have to work with what you have.

[World_Eater]

@Captain Amazing

It sort of is. It’s about stirring up enough shit against Bush so that his administration will be forced to respond to it and they’ll be distracted from pursuing their own agenda.

It’s about fixing the fucking problems. At least it should be.

[annaplurabelle]

@Captain Amazing

It sort of is. It’s about stirring up enough shit against Bush so that his administration will be forced to respond to it and they’ll be distracted from pursuing their own agenda. The Republicans did the same sort of thing to Clinton. Of course, it was easier for them because they had Congress, but still, you have to work with what you have.

Agreed.

But it could backfire on the Dems too. What do you think, from a purely pragmatic -strategic POV?

Do you think this will de-legitimise Bush in some way? Just being able to slow him down is worth the risk (IMO).

@World Eater

It’s about fixing the fucking problems. At least it should be.

I think some Dems are worried about their own “irregularities” coming to light as well. Isn’t that why Nixon backed down in 1960?

The party faction wars will heat up now too (Dem and GOP). It’s gonna get ugly.

[Captain_Amazing]

@World Eater

It’s about fixing the fucking problems. At least it should be.

The only big problem with the election is that the wrong party won. If bitching about corruption and making structural electoral changes in Ohio or nationwide will help the Democratic candidate in 2008, then I’m all for it. If doing that will hurt the party, I’m against it, and if it won’t have an effect, then I don’t see that it’s a big deal one way or the other.

[Captain_Amazing]

@annaplurabelle

What do you think, from a purely pragmatic -strategic POV? .

Personally, I don’t think it’ll do much good. If the 2000 election mess wasn’t able to bring Bush down, this won’t, and it just makes the Democrats look like sore losers. People have become jaded about electoral corruption.

[manhattan]

@World Eater

It’s about fixing the fucking problems. At least it should be.

In this case, it’s all about trying to ruin Ken Blackwell’s career before he advances further in Ohio.

[Frank]

@manhattan

In this case, it’s all about trying to ruin Ken Blackwell’s career before he advances further in Ohio.

:rolleyes:

No, nothing further to add; that pretty much says it all.

[annaplurabelle]

@Captain Amazing

The only big problem with the election is that the wrong party won. If bitching about corruption and making structural electoral changes in Ohio or nationwide will help the Democratic candidate in 2008, then I’m all for it. If doing that will hurt the party, I’m against it, and if it won’t have an effect, then I don’t see that it’s a big deal one way or the other.

I don’t agree with this, although I understand why you think so.

So, what do the Dems stand for? I said this in an earlier thread about “Dem strategy” (no, not the last one): Your values are your values. What the hell does the party stand for? A party not willing to take risks, to lose, on a matter of principle, is not a party I would want to belong to.

I don’t have a party. And I’m tired of choosing between the lesser of two evils. You might win with your line of reasoning, but it would be a hollow victory. No better than the current victors.

[World_Eater]

@annaplurabelle

I think some Dems are worried about their own “irregularities” coming to light as well.

Good, then we should shine the light on those roaches too.

[Captain_Amazing]

@annaplurabelle

So, what do the Dems stand for?

If you want positions, here’s the 2004 Democratic platform (in PDF)

www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

So that’s pretty much what the party stands for, or at least, what the party leadership and the delegates could agree the party stands for. Then, of course, individual democrats are all over the map.

You might win with your line of reasoning, but it would be a hollow victory. No better than the current victors.

Probably. Personally, I’d be fine with that, but I can see how it might bother you.

[Bricker]

@Captain Amazing

The only big problem with the election is that the wrong party won. If bitching about corruption and making structural electoral changes in Ohio or nationwide will help the Democratic candidate in 2008, then I’m all for it. If doing that will hurt the party, I’m against it, and if it won’t have an effect, then I don’t see that it’s a big deal one way or the other.

I really admire the honesty of this response. I wonder if I could impose on this honesty and get the answer to another question: Captain Amazing, just as a guess, what percentage of the complaints would you guess are arising from this pragmatic view that you’ve taken, and what percentage are grounded in more idealistic concerns?

[Evil_Captor]

@Metacom

Actually, “all mistakes in Bush’s favor” is a perfectly valid random result.

It’s a POSSIBLE random result, but a very, very, very, very, very UNLIKELY one.

I understand about randomness. If I flip a coin 1000 times, and it comes up heads 999 of those times, what are the odds that it will come up heads the 1000th time? Still 50/50.

I gotta tell you though, any reasonable person is going to be suspicious of the coin or the coin-tosser under those circumstances, whether he’s located in Florida or Ohio.

[annaplurabelle]

@Captain Amazing

Personally, I don’t think it’ll do much good. If the 2000 election mess wasn’t able to bring Bush down, this won’t, and it just makes the Democrats look like sore losers. People have become jaded about electoral corruption.

I’m expecting the “sore loser” meme will get the most play, today.

But investigations are ongoing, and there is some interesting evidence that hasn’t been fully explored yet. Never know who will come forward, or what else will come out, in the days ahead.

There was/is an internal struggle as to who/what Dem faction will take control of the issue. The DLC has their own legal team investigating. Keep an eye on Simon Rosenberg (the “third way” chair candidate), and the Dean movement.

Rumbling on the other side of the aisle too. James Baker is said to be very unhappy with the current admin. The neocons aren’t party loyalists, and the paleocons and moderates want them out.

I’m beginning to regain hope that SimonX was right.

[World_Eater]

@Evil Captor

It’s a POSSIBLE random result, but a very, very, very, very, very UNLIKELY one.

I understand about randomness. If I flip a coin 1000 times, and it comes up heads 999 of those times, what are the odds that it will come up heads the 1000th time? Still 50/50.

Christ not the gamblers falicy again!

[ZombiesAteMyBrain]

@Captain Amazing

Personally, I don’t think it’ll do much good. If the 2000 election mess wasn’t able to bring Bush down, this won’t, and it just makes the Democrats look like sore losers. People have become jaded about electoral corruption.

Perhaps this 'jaded’ness is the reason why American voters didn’t take to the streets, as they did in the Ukraine, and demand a new election.

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff11262004.html

• In Sumska, during the first round of voting in the Ukraine, hundreds of votes were shifted from Mr. Yuschenko to Viktor Yanukovich. This relatively minor example of fraud is simply dwarfed by the tense of thousands of known votes that were shifted by voting machines from Kerry to Bush (at least 20,000 discovered in North Carolina and thousands in Ohio), not to mention evidence that election officials were keeping double paper record tallies from machines in many Florida counties, and were caught trying to throw out the ones that showed higher totals for Kerry. How much more such vote shifting occurred in the U.S. vote is not known, but if the small example found in Sumska can be used to condemn the validity of the whole election there, why is the much larger concrete evidence of fraud in the U.S. being ignored?

Given the remarkable similarities between the types of frauds being mentioned in the Ukraine election and those that are known to have occurred in the U.S–particularly in the key states of Ohio and Florida, a victory in either one of which would have given a victory to Kerry–it is a grotesque scandal that the U.S. media is not calling the U.S. election a fraud in the same way it is reporting the Ukraine election as a fraud.

[Bricker]

@ZombiesAteMyBrain

This relatively minor example of fraud is simply dwarfed by the tense of thousands of known votes that were shifted by voting machines from Kerry to Bush (at least 20,000 discovered in North Carolina and thousands in Ohio), not to mention evidence that election officials were keeping double paper record tallies from machines in many Florida counties, and were caught trying to throw out the ones that showed higher totals for Kerry.

That is a lie, and you are a liar, and those zombies are freakin’ STARVING if their only nourishment comes frmo your brain.

[FinnAgain]

Bricker: Have those involved in the creation of this report engaged in lying on this scale before? Is their credibility shot?
If not, why dismiss the findings out of hand?

Further, as to why the Kerry campaign didn’t make a fuss? Maybe all the data wasn’t in. Maybe now is the time that things come to light. If I remember correctly, Kerry gave up the ghost very, very, very quickly. There’s also the fact that he always came across as a bit of a milquetoast to me…

As for complaints being ‘whining’, how about those that seem valid? Voting machines giving false tallies and such? Surely this is a problem?

Captain Amazing: Let’s say that for some of the Dem’ leadership, it is about making trouble for Bush. Isn’t it possible, even probable that for some, like myself, democracy and our political system are more important than the person who gets elected?

Manhattan Why would this be about making problems for some minor functionary? I do not grok, what’s the motivation?

---

I mean, isn’t it in our best interest, and the nation’s best interest, and in accord with truth and justice to make sure that elections always run as close to perfectly as humanly possible?