TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Will We Have a Fair Election?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Will We Have a Fair Election? - Page 2

post #31 of 43
I didn't realize people thought Bush rigged both elections. Wasn't it Ohio that carried the day in 2004? So Ohio in 2004 and Florida and the Supreme Court in 2000 ALL conspired to rig both elections? Now, THAT would REALLY be something.

I hope people won't say that if the Democrats win the White House this year.
I know I won't.
post #32 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I didn't realize people thought Bush rigged both elections. Wasn't it Ohio that carried the day in 2004? So Ohio in 2004 and Florida and the Supreme Court in 2000 ALL conspired to rig both elections? Now, THAT would REALLY be something.

I hope people won't say that if the Democrats win the White House this year.
I know I won't.
It would be, wouldn't it. We had/ve a crooked man running our elections (he tried to run for office and be in charge of the election at once, for starters) and it has been proven that the electronic voting machines are easily tampered with, not very accurate or reliable, etc etc. We were given, by court order, the option of voting today with a paper ballot as a result of how terrible the machines are.

Does that mean Bush rigged the election? No. It does mean that I don't trust the election results from that year as far as I can throw them. Had the election been done right, he may have won anyway, but we'll never know.

That and the fact that redistricting has caused long lines and mass confusion in minority neighborhoods (ie, Democrats) and extremely easy voting in the 'burbs. And that there was someone out fliering saying that the voting day for Democrats was Wednesday, Nov 8.
post #33 of 43
But if Gore in 2000 or Kerry in 2004 had won, then the electronic voting machines would have been running up to par?
post #34 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
But if Gore in 2000 or Kerry in 2004 had won, then the electronic voting machines would have been running up to par?
No. They are a failure, regardless of who won.
post #35 of 43
I mentioned in another thread that I used to teach history. There are some great lessons to be learned there. Also, I've called the last 5 elections correctly, months before the event. I'm not sure it's going to be that way this time, since I'm not out and about at truck stops, etc., as I used to be.

One big lesson from history is that our democracy is healthiest when the party in power changes on a regular basis. First, because it's good for politicians to remember they CAN be voted out. Second, because neither party has a pipeline to truth and wisdom, and they both have good and bad ideas. It sometimes takes a change in power for the best ideas to be tried.

One thing I DO predict is that no matter how the vote goes, or whether Hillary or Obama win the nomination, is that there will be accusations of massive voter fraud. Why? Because while most people believe that it's wrong to say they would or would not vote for a given candidate just because of race or gender, that doesn't mean they won't do it. However, they then lie to exit pollsters about it. That has thrown predictions off in a number of primaries, so far.

By the way, if I were a betting man, right now I'd bet it will be Obama getting the nomination and winning by a very good margin. But never count a Clinton out until the thing is completely decided.

I DO wonder what would happen in the long months before the election if something really bad happens to the candidate, such as McCain dying of a heart attack or something. And don't dismiss the possibility out of hand; he's had some of the worst luck of any one person I've ever heard of, including a couple of crashes in flight school, having his plane hit by a missle from another American airplane which then caused the terrible fire on the Forrestal, and being shot down. I don't think I'd ride in a plane with him!
post #36 of 43
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I didn't realize people thought Bush rigged both elections. Wasn't it Ohio that carried the day in 2004? So Ohio in 2004 and Florida and the Supreme Court in 2000 ALL conspired to rig both elections? Now, THAT would REALLY be something.

I hope people won't say that if the Democrats win the White House this year.
I know I won't.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
But if Gore in 2000 or Kerry in 2004 had won, then the electronic voting machines would have been running up to par?
The electronic voting machines have pretty much been shown to be unreliable. It would be easier to fix an election with them than most of us realized before the Florida 2000 mess-up.

There was electronic voting in L.A. up until this election. It was only available in two locations this time: the registrar's offices, and at the Braille Institute for the Blind. I guess the blind have a special machine with vocal prompts.

I always felt the Florida election was fixed. Especially since the Palm Beach County results showed way more votes for the conservative (was it Buchanan or Robertson?) than even he could believe he got. Now I know that the machines could have just been wrongly calibrated or that the ballot could have been confusing. I learned that in Toobin's book.

On the other hand, the election should not have been decided in the way it was. The Florida Supreme Court should have been allowed to rule that all the votes should have been recounted and that the standard of "voter intent" should have applied to the ballots in Palm Beach County and elsewhere. Instead Bush took it to the U.S. Supreme Court and they ordered the vote to stand and the recount to be stopped. It was a shoddy decision no matter what party you are for.

It was clear that the Republicans had decided to win by any means necessary. They were uninterested in getting an honest and fair vote and letting the voters decide. The had the governor, the secretary of state and many smaller persons on the county level all thinking their way.

Groups of people flew into the state just to "demonstrate" and raise a ruckus in Miami, to the point that they were able to bully the people doing the recount to stop. No one in the city or county government protected the official recount process from the demonstrators.

The fact that the American people just rolled over and accepted the questionable results made me feel that they would accept a lot more and worse. To my thinking and observation we have accepted the loss of a lot of civil liberaties since then. A frightening amount.

No matter how the vote goes this time, the results of that shoddy election will be played out in people feeling betrayed and cheated.

Don't forget how close the elections actually were in terms of the popular vote. Gore actually won in 2000 and the 2004 was decided by only 1-2%.
post #37 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by katie=^..^= View Post
The electronic voting machines have pretty much been shown to be unreliable. It would be easier to fix an election with them than most of us realized before the Florida 2000 mess-up.


Don't forget how close the elections actually were in terms of the popular vote. Gore actually won in 2000 and the 2004 was decided by only 1-2%.

the first part is very true. Those machines do scare me.
no gore lost in 2000, he did not carry the Electoral College.
post #38 of 43
Bush received 271 electoral college votes to Gore's 266.
post #39 of 43
Thread Starter 
Gore won the popular vote. Bush won the Electoral College. Most Americans were surprised that this could even happen.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/spe...lege/more.html
post #40 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by katie=^..^= View Post
Gore won the popular vote. Bush won the Electoral College. Most Americans were surprised that this could even happen.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/spe...lege/more.html
Right. I've believed for a long time that we should do away with the electoral college and go off of the popular vote. It's easy to see why many people feel that their vote doesn't count.
post #41 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essayons89 View Post
Right. I've believed for a long time that we should do away with the electoral college and go off of the popular vote. It's easy to see why many people feel that their vote doesn't count.

i say get rid of the electoral college,
however only people that own land can vote.
also are able to understand written and spoken english.
post #42 of 43
Actually, Gore PROBABLY won the popular vote. There were enough uncounted absentee ballots around the country that he might not have, but that would assume the Bush won most of those votes.

The electoral college is there to keep states (and congressional districts) with low populations from being "run over" by the cities. This probably made more sense in decades gone by, but if you want to see why that might be the case, take a look at New York. The population in the City is enough to overwhelm the votes of the rest of the state, which makes it possible for them to vote in programs or laws that are beneficial to the city but detrimental to the majority of the state.

We have some of the same problem here in Texas. Dallas and Houston together have enough votes in our legislature to allow those two cities to control the agenda for the state. We have some counties in which the population is so small that there has been some agitation to merge them. You can drive a long ways out there by the I-10/I-20 merge without seeing much of anything.

So the electoral college is in place to protect the parts of our country that are very productive but not necessarily very heavily populated.
post #43 of 43
There is a vast amount of the country that would get no attention at all in General Presidential elections. Candidates would concentrate on the coasts and maybe Illinois and the rest of the country would be ignored.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Will We Have a Fair Election?