Griz_ wrote:I'm not convinced that the election can be rigged in the sense that the actual votes cast aren't counted correctly, but Putin and Trump are doing their best to make people think it will be.

laklak wrote:On to the second article, entitled "Inside conservatives’ Hail Mary plan to win the presidency forever". GASP! It's those GOP assholes trying to steal the country!!!!

Well, not exactly.

Most blue states are "winner take all" in the electoral college. This has given the Dems a built in advantage in states like New York and California, known as the "Blue Wall", because urban voters outnumber rural voters and the Dems routinely take the big cities.

laklak wrote: The GOP wants to change that, and make it a proportional split of the EC votes. Specifically, they want to proportion the votes by congressional district, which makes sense because the number of electoral votes is equal to the number of congressional districts. Instead of trying to "rig the election, the GOP wants to make it MORE fair.

laklak wrote:The Democrats are butthurt because their vote-grabbing set up is on the chopping block. Big FAIL for article number 2, it's propaganda.

All through election day 2004, exit polls showed Kerry ahead by 53 to 47 percent, giving him a nationwide edge of about 1.5 million votes, and a solid victory in the electoral college. Yet strangely enough, the official tally gave Bush the election by two million votes. What follows are examples of how the GOP “victory” was secured.4

In some places large numbers of Democratic registration forms disappeared, along with absentee ballots and provisional ballots. Sometimes absentee ballots were mailed out to voters just before election day, too late to be returned on time, or they were never mailed at all.Overseas ballots normally reliably distributed by the State Department were for some reason distributed by the Pentagon in 2004. Nearly half of the six million American voters living abroad--a noticeable number of whom formed anti-Bush organizations--never received their ballots or got them too late to vote. Military personnel, usually more inclined toward supporting the president, encountered no such problems with their overseas ballots. A person familiar with my work, Rick Garves, sent me this account of his attempt to cast an overseas ballot:

In several states, residents in Democratic areas were confronted by purged registration lists, falsely based threats of arrest, and exacting voter ID requirements. Irregularities were so outrageous in Virginia that the FBI was called in. According to the polls, Senate Republican incumbent George Allen should have lost Virginia by a substantial margin instead of a few thousand votes. Touch screen irregularities and voter discouragement tactics helped him close the gap but not enough. In Florida’s district 13, the Democratic candidate Christine Jennings lost by a few hundred votes after 18,000 ballots were lost by touchscreen machines that left no paper trail to rectify the situation.

Democrats lost another seat in Florida and at least two in Ohio, Harvey Wasserman reports, that they should have won according to the polls. The Democrats should have won the House by 50 or more seats and the Senate by a wider margin, Wasserman suggested in a radio interview (Pacifica, May 2007).

Touchscreen machines have been variously described as “faulty,” or ridden with “glitches.” This is not usually the case. If it were simply a matter of malfunction, the mistakes would occur randomly, rather than consistently favoring the GOP. What we are dealing with are not faulty machines but fixed machines.

The United States is the only country (as compared to Western Europe) that makes it difficult for people to vote. Historically the hurdles have been directed at low-income voters and ethnic minorities. In 2006, various states disqualified voters if their registration information failed to match perfectly with some other record such as a driver’s license. Because of this at least 17 percent of eligible citizens in Arizona’s largest county were denied registration. In some states persons who conduct voter registration drives risk criminal prosecution for harmless mistakes, including errors in collecting forms. In Florida some 50,000 voters were purged in 2004 (in addition to the many purged in 2000), many of them African-American, who still were unable to vote by 2006. In various states and counties the subterranean war against electoral democracy continues.6

Macdoc wrote:Wishful thinking on votes missing

All through election day 2004, exit polls showed Kerry ahead by 53 to 47 percent, giving him a nationwide edge of about 1.5 million votes, and a solid victory in the electoral college. Yet strangely enough, the official tally gave Bush the election by two million votes. What follows are examples of how the GOP “victory” was secured.4

In some places large numbers of Democratic registration forms disappeared, along with absentee ballots and provisional ballots. Sometimes absentee ballots were mailed out to voters just before election day, too late to be returned on time, or they were never mailed at all.Overseas ballots normally reliably distributed by the State Department were for some reason distributed by the Pentagon in 2004. Nearly half of the six million American voters living abroad--a noticeable number of whom formed anti-Bush organizations--never received their ballots or got them too late to vote. Military personnel, usually more inclined toward supporting the president, encountered no such problems with their overseas ballots. A person familiar with my work, Rick Garves, sent me this account of his attempt to cast an overseas ballot:

In several states, residents in Democratic areas were confronted by purged registration lists, falsely based threats of arrest, and exacting voter ID requirements. Irregularities were so outrageous in Virginia that the FBI was called in. According to the polls, Senate Republican incumbent George Allen should have lost Virginia by a substantial margin instead of a few thousand votes. Touch screen irregularities and voter discouragement tactics helped him close the gap but not enough. In Florida’s district 13, the Democratic candidate Christine Jennings lost by a few hundred votes after 18,000 ballots were lost by touchscreen machines that left no paper trail to rectify the situation.

Democrats lost another seat in Florida and at least two in Ohio, Harvey Wasserman reports, that they should have won according to the polls. The Democrats should have won the House by 50 or more seats and the Senate by a wider margin, Wasserman suggested in a radio interview (Pacifica, May 2007).

Touchscreen machines have been variously described as “faulty,” or ridden with “glitches.” This is not usually the case. If it were simply a matter of malfunction, the mistakes would occur randomly, rather than consistently favoring the GOP. What we are dealing with are not faulty machines but fixed machines.

The United States is the only country (as compared to Western Europe) that makes it difficult for people to vote. Historically the hurdles have been directed at low-income voters and ethnic minorities. In 2006, various states disqualified voters if their registration information failed to match perfectly with some other record such as a driver’s license. Because of this at least 17 percent of eligible citizens in Arizona’s largest county were denied registration. In some states persons who conduct voter registration drives risk criminal prosecution for harmless mistakes, including errors in collecting forms. In Florida some 50,000 voters were purged in 2004 (in addition to the many purged in 2000), many of them African-American, who still were unable to vote by 2006. In various states and counties the subterranean war against electoral democracy continues.6

read and weep
http://www.michaelparenti.org/stolenelections.html

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe wrote:
The November 2, 2004 elections in the United States mostly met the OSCE commitments included in the 1990 Copenhagen Document. They were conducted in an environment that reflects a long-standing democratic tradition, including institutions governed by the rule of law, free and generally professional media, and a civil society intensively engaged in the election process. There was exceptional public interest in the two leading presidential candidates and the issues raised by their respective campaigns, as well as in the election process itself. However, a number of issues were identified, particularly in the context of the ongoing electoral reform process, which merit further consideration.


The voting rights of minorities are well represented, both through federal and state law. The activities of a wealth of civil society organizations focus attention on minority voting rights issues. In this regard, there is a breadth of information, advice and opportunities available to minority voters.

The EOM noted concerns, mainly by several African-American voters’ advocacy groups but also reported in the national media, regarding the so-called suppression of the vote. This term was used to describe the allegedly intentional effort to decrease minority voter participation through administrative shortcomings, such as inaccurate voter registers, purges of the voter register intended to remove ex-felons but which removed non felons, inaccurate voter information, and cases of voter intimidation. Other than press reports, the EOM was not aware of such instances and was not able to identify any first-hand evidence for alleged vote suppression.

The EOM was presented with a few examples of anonymous leaflets, allegedly distributed in the immediate pre-election period with the supposed intention to “suppress” the vote of historically disadvantaged minorities. While recognizing the seriousness of such allegations, the EOM was not provided with substantial evidence that such practices existed.


There was no clear procedure for collating and disseminating data on the number of provisional
ballots cast in a particular state. This led to a degree of uncertainty about whether the number of such ballots cast, for example in the State of Ohio, had the potential to affect the overall result in the presidential race. Apart from this, there were few reported problems connected with provisional balloting on or after election day.


Voting took place in some 186,720 polling places across the U.S. Election day and was characterized by a high turnout, in total 122, 280,899 voters cast their ballots. In a number of areas, this resulted in long lines and pressure on poll workers. The EOM commends the patience of voters who waited to cast their vote, in some cases for several hours, and the commitment of poll workers, performing at times under difficult conditions.

EOM observation reports indicated that the polling process was mostly uneventful. While the polls were generally well administered, observers also noted that poll workers displayed varying levels of knowledge on correct procedures e.g. on use of the provisional ballot. It was not clear that poll workers had generally received sufficient training to perform their functions.

The EOM heard concerns that, due to variances in the numbers, quality and type of voting equipment units in usage in polling stations throughout the country, disparities in exercising the right to vote could have occurred. It seems that in those areas where voters had to wait in long lines, waiting periods may have deterred voters from voting, particularly those who were working on 2 November and were not given time off by their employers.

The EOM heard concerns that, due to variances in the numbers, quality and type of voting equipment units in usage in polling stations throughout the country, disparities in exercising the right to vote could have occurred. It seems that in those areas where voters had to wait in long lines, waiting periods may have deterred voters from voting, particularly those who were working on 2 November and were not given time off by their employers.

In the uproar over the DNC, observers have been quick to point out the obvious: There is no singular national body that regulates the security or even execution of what happens on Election Day, and there never has been. It’s a process regulated state by state. Technical standards for voting are devised by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Election Assistance Commission—which was formed after the disputed 2000 presidential election that hinged on faulty ballots—but the guidelines are voluntary. (For three years the EAC limped on without confirmed commissioners—an EAC commissioner stepped down in 2005, calling its work a “charade”).

Policy on voting is decided by each state and, in some cases, each county—a system illustrated vividly by the trench warfare of voter ID laws that pockmark the country. In total, more than 8,000 jurisdictions of varying size and authority administer the country’s elections, almost entirely at the hands of an army of middle-age volunteers. Some would say such a system cries out for security standards.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... z4LtF89VGs
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Macdoc wrote:

The EOM heard concerns that, due to variances in the numbers, quality and type of voting equipment units in usage in polling stations throughout the country, disparities in exercising the right to vote could have occurred. It seems that in those areas where voters had to wait in long lines, waiting periods may have deterred voters from voting, particularly those who were working on 2 November and were not given time off by their employers.

read ....fixed - they politely acknowledged your voting system is fucked.

Macdoc wrote:You don't have a national independent elections body and that is a recipe for corruption and vote fixing which has a very long history in the US.

In the uproar over the DNC, observers have been quick to point out the obvious: There is no singular national body that regulates the security or even execution of what happens on Election Day, and there never has been. It’s a process regulated state by state. Technical standards for voting are devised by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Election Assistance Commission—which was formed after the disputed 2000 presidential election that hinged on faulty ballots—but the guidelines are voluntary. (For three years the EAC limped on without confirmed commissioners—an EAC commissioner stepped down in 2005, calling its work a “charade”).

Policy on voting is decided by each state and, in some cases, each county—a system illustrated vividly by the trench warfare of voter ID laws that pockmark the country. In total, more than 8,000 jurisdictions of varying size and authority administer the country’s elections, almost entirely at the hands of an army of middle-age volunteers. Some would say such a system cries out for security standards.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... z4LtF89VGs
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

3rd world

laklak wrote:@OS - all that I wrote was in the posted article.

quas wrote:Don't know why anyone cares anymore. Rigged or not, it has always been between a giant douche and a turd sandwich will likely remain that way forever and ever.