Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Who won?

samzenpus posted more than 7 years ago | from the start-the-political-machines dept.

Book Reviews 555

doom writes "I think they call them "exit polls" because people bolt for the exits when you mention them, but I'm still fascinated by the subject myself, and this book is one of the reasons why. In Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen?, the central focus is, of course, on the infamous exit-poll discrepancies of the 2004 US Presidential election; but the authors also put it into context: they discuss the 2000 election, the irregularities in Ohio in 2004, the electronic voting machines issues, and the media's strange reluctance to report on any of these problems. Further, in the chapter "How did America really vote?", they compare the indications of the raw exit-poll data to other available polling data. Throughout, Freeman and Bleifuss do an excellent job of presenting arguments based on statistical analysis in a clear, concise way." Read the rest of doom's review

The heart of the book in my opinion, is Chapter 5, "The inauguration eve exit-poll report": The Edison and Mitofsky firms that conducted the NEP exit polls later released a report trying to explain how they could have gotten it so far wrong. Freeman and Bleifuss, of course, take issue with the presumption that the discrepancies must be "errors", and argue in a different direction. This section makes an exciting read (in a nerdy sort of way) it's an impressive piece of statistical judo: Freeman and Bleifuss take on Edison/Mitofsky with their own data, and totally shred their conclusions. The authors show: That the exit-poll discrepancies had a statistically significant correlation with the use of electronic voting machines, with races in battleground states, and in almost all cases favored the Republicans. The "Reluctant Bush Respondant" theory looks extremely unlikely: response rates actually look slightly better in Bush strongholds than in Kerry strongholds; and while media skepticism remains strong among conservatives, it has been on the rise among Democrats, and yet the data shows no shift in relative avoidance of pollsters. They also deal with the various other excuses that were floated shortly after the election: The discrepancies can't be shrugged off with an "exit polls are not reliable" — theory shows that they should be better than any other survey data, and history shows that they always have been pretty reliable. There was no upswing of support for Bush throughout election day — that impression was entirely an artifact of the media "correcting" the exit-poll figures to match the official results. One of the book's authors, Steven Freeman, was one of the first to examine the exit-poll discrepancies, and as a professor at University of Pennsylvania with a background in survey design, he was well equipped to begin delving into the peculiarities he had noticed.

Overall, this is an excellent book for people interested in evaluating the data; with lots of graphs that make it easy to do informal estimates of the strength of their conclusions (just eye-balling the scatter, the correlations they point to look real, albeit a little loose, as you might expect). There's also an appendix with a very clear exposition of the the concept of statistical significance, and how it applies to this polling data. There are of course, limits to what one can conclude just from the exit-poll discrepancies: "We reiterate that this does not prove the official vote count was fraudulent. What it does say is that the discrepancy between the official count and the exit polls can't be just a statistical fluke, but commands some kind of systematic explanation: Either the exit poll was deeply flawed or else the vote count was corrupted. "

This is a remarkably restrained book: unlike many authors addressing this controversial subject, Freeman and Bleifuss have resisted the temptation to rant or speculate or even to editorialize very much. Freeman claims that he is not a political person (and adds "I despise the Democrats"); possibly this has helped him to maintain his neutrality and focus on the facts of the case.

Personally, I found this book to be something of a revelation: in the confusion immediately after the 2004 election, I had the impression that the people who wanted to believe that it was legitimate at least had some wiggle room. There was some disagreement about the meaning of the exit polls: there was that study at Berkeley that found significant problems, but then the MIT study chimed in saying there wasn't, so who do you believe? The thing is, the MIT guys later admitted that they got it wrong: they used the "corrected" data, not the originally reported exit poll results. The media never covered that development, and I missed it myself...

On the subject of electronic voting machines, They include a chapter discussing electronic voting in general which covers ground that is by now familiar with most readers here: the strange case of Wally O'Dell and Diebold; and also the lesser known problems with ES&S. Have you heard this one? "In 1992, Hagel, then an investment banker and president of the holding company McCarthy & Co., became chairman of American Information Systems, which was to become ES&S in 1999. [...] In the 1996 elections, Hagel launched his political career with two stunning upsets. He won a primary victory in Nebraska [...] despite the fact that he was not well known. Then, in the general election, Hagel was elected to the Senate in what Business Week described as 'an unexpected 1996 landslide victory over Ben Nelson, Nebraska's popular Democratic governor.'"

My experience is that a lot of people need to hear this point: "The voting machine company Datamark, which became American Information Systems and is now known as ES&S, was founded in 1980 by two brothers, Bob and Todd Urosevich. Today, Todd is a vice president at ES&S and Bob is CEO of Diebold Election Systems."

It's impossible to see how you can come away from this situation without seeing that we badly need reform of the electoral system: even if you don't believe the 2004 election was "stolen", how do you know the next one isn't going to be? A paper trail that can actually be recounted would be a nice start, eh? But only a start. As the author's point out: "We devoted a chapter to the ills of electronic voting, but a critical lesson of the 2004 election is that not only DREs, but all kinds of voting machine systems are suspect. Edison/Mitofsky data showed that while hand counted ballots accurately reflected exit-poll survey results, counts from all the major categories of voting machines did not."

In one short passage, the authors list a few "grounds for hope", but following up on these points is not encouraging: The Diebold-injunction law suit in California brought by VoterAction has since been denied and one attempt at a paper trail amendment, HR 550 has stalled out.

If you're looking for an answer to the question posed by the book's title, the authors conclude: "So how did America really vote? Every independent measure points to a Kerry victory of about 5 percentage points in the popular vote nationwide, a swing of 8 to 10 million votes from the official count."

Of the many and various potentially depressing books out there about the state of the United States, I recommend this one highly: it addresses a critical set of issues that everything else depends on.


You can purchase Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

cancel ×

555 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What? (5, Insightful)

TheOldSchooler (850678) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651492)

'Freeman claims that he is not a political person (and adds "I despise the Democrats")'

So hating one of the major political parties involved in that election makes him neutral?

Re:What? (2, Insightful)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651524)

It's the fundamental value of most of the US right now. We're all neutral.

Re:What? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17651984)

It's the fundamental value of most of the US right now. We're all neutered.

There. Fixed it for you.

"We're All Neutral" (4, Funny)

Stanistani (808333) | more than 7 years ago | (#17652068)

What makes a man turn neutral ... Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?
--Zapp Brannigan

Re:What? (5, Funny)

ThinkFr33ly (902481) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651598)

If you're a "Fox News Republican" then, yes, hating the Democrats is a prerequisite for being considered unbiased.

Re:What? (1, Troll)

breakspirit (827558) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651640)

Or maybe he hates the republicans just as much, but that kind of goes without saying. Honestly, what intelligent person WOULDN'T hate republicans? I'd say he's neutral if he hates both equally.

Re:What? (4, Insightful)

dan828 (753380) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651880)

Funny, I've always felt that an intelligent person would realize that buying into a particular political philosophy doesn't automatically make the other side evil. But the ability for people to recognize their own biases and irrationalities seems to be remarkably diminished when it comes to politics.

Re:What? (5, Funny)

polar red (215081) | more than 7 years ago | (#17652104)

buying into a particular political philosophy doesn't automatically make the other side evil.
bush wouldn't agree with you.

that an intelligent person would realize
Oh, you accounted for that ...

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17652012)

Democrats are driven by emotion, so hate is significant for them. Republicans consider reality to be more important than feelings.

Re:What? (4, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | more than 7 years ago | (#17652044)

I'd say he's neutral if he hates both equally

and I would say you need to give nore thought to the meaning of the word "neutral." hatred is still blinding no matter how widely it is spread.

Re:What? (1)

VEGETA_GT (255721) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651646)

As far as I know he is not neutered, though I wish some if not all politisions where.

O you said neutral, my mistake.

Re:What? (4, Insightful)

dan828 (753380) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651722)

No, the author is just trying to suggest he isn't just another democrat fanboy that will bash the republicans no matter what. It doesn't make him neutral, but it is an attempt to say that he's not biased against the particular group that he's accusing of rigging the election. He'll sell more books that way, you see.

Re:What? (3, Interesting)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651730)

Thats what I got too.
Bias is not wrong by any means, but understanding that bias and choosing why that bias applies to you us a beginning to understand how to factor it out of your judgments.

Now on to election stuff... Our country has a well defined system of voting presidents and thats via the electoral votes. Those votes are made by the electoral members we choose to send, and these numbers are based upon congress and senate votes (congress is population based, and senate is 2 per state). Because of thos, we can technically have one president declared the winner by mass majority, but our system prevents democracy by limiting damage by the majority.

And when it comes down to the election itself, Im a Libertarian and want the government to stop nannying me around and to get their hands out of my wallet. That aside, voting with these terminals are horrendously insecure. This insecurity affects all candidates, as election skew undermines the will of the people. So what if the "Republicans are in bed with Diebold" or whatnot. Im sure Democrats are also.

Id rather have the most liberal democrat voted as president (Im thinking Chavez'ian socialist) than have a illegally voted in Libertarian.

Re:What? (1)

spiritraveller (641174) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651868)

'Freeman claims that he is not a political person (and adds "I despise the Democrats")'

So hating one of the major political parties involved in that election makes him neutral?


He's probably a Green. They despise the Democrats without being political people. Or at least, without being **elected** people.

Re:What? (2, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | more than 7 years ago | (#17652246)

'Freeman claims that he is not a political person (and adds "I despise the Democrats")'

So hating one of the major political parties involved in that election makes him neutral?

Despite what you might think, few things are black and white. The enemy of your enemy doesn't have to be your friend. Freeman can despise the democrats and fear the republicans without being a fan of either.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:What? (2, Insightful)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 7 years ago | (#17652256)

"So hating one of the major political parties involved in that election makes him neutral?"

Hey, it works for Bill O'Reilly!

Just more sour grapes (0, Redundant)

singingjim (957822) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651518)

Exit polls? I intentionally give the opposite answer whenever anyone asks me anything at the polls because it's absolutely on one's business but mine. Dick move or not I'm sure I'm not the only "dick" that does this. Exit polls be damned.

That was covered (4, Informative)

benhocking (724439) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651682)

You realize that was covered in the review, don't you?
The authors show: That the exit-poll discrepancies had a statistically significant correlation with the use of electronic voting machines, with races in battleground states, and in almost all cases favored the Republicans. The "Reluctant Bush Respondant" theory looks extremely unlikely: response rates actually look slightly better in Bush strongholds than in Kerry strongholds; and while media skepticism remains strong among conservatives, it has been on the rise among Democrats, and yet the data shows no shift in relative avoidance of pollsters. They also deal with the various other excuses that were floated shortly after the election: The discrepancies can't be shrugged off with an "exit polls are not reliable" -- theory shows that they should be better than any other survey data, and history shows that they always have been pretty reliable.

Re:That was covered (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 7 years ago | (#17652188)

I'm not a Bush supporter by any standards, but...
The "Reluctant Bush Respondant" theory looks extremely unlikely: response rates actually look slightly better in Bush strongholds than in Kerry strongholds
...I don't see this as a rebuttal of a reluctant voter scenario, at least not fully. I would think that Bush supporters would be more likely to try to conceal their candidate of choice in areas where they aren't the majority. Still, the reluctant Bush respondant theory looks silly for other reasons imo. It would only work if a statistically significant number of Bush supporters would claim they favor democrats, so that the number of democrat voters would get out of sync with election results. The problem is not explaining how Bush had more votes, but how Kerry votes decreased and Bush votes increased if you compare election results to exit polls. I don't think it is likely, if we go along with the theory that Bush supporters didn't want their preference known, that they'd respond that they are democrat supporters instead of saying "don't know/won't tell".

Re:Just more sour grapes (1)

russ1337 (938915) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651962)

>>> "Dick move or not I'm sure I'm not the only "dick" that does this",

These people are very good statisticians. They know exactly how many people are 'dicks' like you, and I'm sure if they were pushed they could probably pick you out in a crowd.

freaking me out (-1, Flamebait)

boxlight (928484) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651576)

*sigh* Stolen elections, terrorist conspiracies. Dubya may be making a lot of mistakes, but he's not Adolph Hilter. Heck, he's not even Richard Nixon.

All this talk about how he engineers fake elections and terrorist attacks -- all from a guy who everyone ridicules as been a moron ... I think people need a reality check.

America voted Bush in. The first time because he was a friendly likable guy and the Lewinsky scandal scoured them on Clinton/Gore. He won the second time because they felt he was protecting them from danger and wanted to give him a chance to win the war. Bush won. Both times. Get over it.

In 2008 you'll have a shot at the White House again, and it'll be be your election to lose.

boxlight

Don't freak out, little troll (5, Insightful)

jguevin (453329) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651644)

He won the second time because they felt he was protecting them from danger and wanted to give him a chance to win the war.

Some people voted for him for that reason, agreed. The issue is whether enough people actually voted for him, for whatever reason, to have fairly elected him for this second term. A thoughtful and complete analysis of whether that happened is most welcome, I think. The fact that you're tired of thinking about it ("get over it") isn't really relevant, and I suspect that your own evident bias is a strong influence on your willingness to hear about it.

Re:Don't freak out, little troll (1)

whathappenedtomonday (581634) | more than 7 years ago | (#17652334)

The issue is whether enough people actually voted for him, for whatever reason, to have fairly elected him for this second term.

Tehe...while I agree with what you wrote, the real issue should be: Why is there any doubt at all about the election outcome? Shouldn't there be an election process that leaves no doubt whatsoever? just a thought...

Re:freaking me out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17651736)

All this talk about how he engineers fake elections and terrorist attacks -- all from a guy who everyone ridicules as been a moron ... I think people need a reality check.

I don't think the book or the reviewer, or anyone with any sense is suggesting that Bush (himself) did or could have stolen the election.

But when you have a small group of people controlling the machines and updating the software whenever they feel like it, there is the potential for abuse.

Would we ever be able to prove it? Not likely, even if it happened. That's the problem with these machines.

I'm not saying that the election was stolen, but it's certainly possible. To say that it's just sour grapes and that anyone who would entertain the idea is just a wacko conspiracy theorist... Well, that reflects more on your own perspective than anyone else's.

Did you actually rtfa? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17651784)

The article presents information. Refute it if you will by presenting superior information or insight. I personally find the specter of official corruption deeply disturbing. I will not get over it. Nor should you.

Re:freaking me out (5, Informative)

ThinkFr33ly (902481) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651796)

Indeed, people are in need of a reality check.

I don't know of very many people who say that GWB "engineered" anything, much less large scale election fraud. You do realize that the people in this administration number more than 1, right? You do realize that the people who would stand to gain from this kind of fraud aren't limited to people named George.

America voted Bush in. The first time because he was a friendly likable guy and the Lewinsky scandal scoured them on Clinton/Gore.


Actually, Gore won the popular vote in 2000. In addition, in case you missed it, Clinton had had 66%+ approval rating [pollingreport.com] when he left office. Most political analysts now say that Gore's reluctance to embrace Clinton, coupled with how incredibly boring the man is, cost him the election. (Or, rather, made it as close as it was.) Oh, and not to mention the fact that it was the Supreme Court that handed Bush the win in 2000, stopping a recount that we now know would have resulted in a Gore win.

He won the second time because they felt he was protecting them from danger and wanted to give him a chance to win the war. Bush won. Both times. Get over it.


Except that the book we're commenting on here offers evidence that this was not what happened, and in fact it was fraud that won Bush his second term. If you would like to dispute the data, then sobeit, but making pronouncements like that doesn't make them true.

In 2008 you'll have a shot at the White House again, and it'll be be your election to lose.


Who, exactly, are you talking to? The authors of this book never claimed to be Democrats. Furthermore, if what they're saying is true, the very foundations of our Democracy are at risk. One would think people would be a little more concerned over it.

Re:freaking me out (1)

MattyCobb (695086) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651950)

Actually, Gore won the popular vote in 2000.


Except that has nothing to do with election engineering and everything to do with how incredibly stupid and outdated the electoral crap system is. I always took that as the reason the exit polls were incorrect. It is very possible to lose the popular vote by a rather large amount and still win the election with no rigging involved. Not that I like Bush, I voted Libertarian. I would like to see more people whining about how the system needs reform than "OMGZ BUSH'S PEOPLE GOT HIM IN!1!1!".

Re:freaking me out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17652118)

Hate to remind you of this, but popular vote is worthless in the USA.

Re:freaking me out (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651820)

Dubya may be making a lot of mistakes, but he's not Adolph Hilter.

You're absolutely correct. He's George W. Bush. Responsible for the deaths of ~3,000 US Soldiers in Iraq, domestic "spying", ~750 signing statements which in effect alter the original intent of the law, etc, etc, etc.

I really hope GWB's presidency goes down in history as nothing more than an annoying footnote.

Re:freaking me out (2, Funny)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 7 years ago | (#17652030)

It'll only be a comma, if we're lucky.

Re:freaking me out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17652074)

"Responsible for the deaths of ~3,000 US Soldiers in Iraq"
I suppose the people that planted the roadside bombs and fired the guns at the soldiers had nothing to do with it, right? Hussein violated the cease fire that ended the first Gulf War. Ultimately, those soldiers were in Iraq because Hussein invaded Kuwait.

Re:freaking me out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17652106)

I think he is saying that we shouldn't have been there in the first place. You must have forgotten about the lack of "undeniable proof of WMDs!" huh?

Re:freaking me out (0)

cblood (323189) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651896)

Bush was appointed in 2000 by the supreme court with after a contested ballot in a state his brother runs. He is the son of the former head of the cia. No-one disputes the fact that Gore got more vote in the country as a whole. So don't give me this "America voted Bush in" crap.

That's not really the point (5, Insightful)

claykarmel (78187) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651928)

Ronald Reagan famously said, "Trust, but verify" about the Soviet Union's disarmament. That applies here, too.

US elections should not be open to question. We should be able to audit to confirm elections, and vigorously pursue anyone who attempts to illegally influence elections.

Let's fix the system so that we can TRUST the process. That begins by being able to audit the results.

In California, we had the option to fill out a largish sheet of paper, filled on both sides with the elections and propositions. This single piece of paper contained the same information as the Electronic Voting machines. We filled in bubbles, could check our work, and then submitted them into a Diebold scanning machine.

I cringed when I saw the maker, but realized that my paper ballot was there for counting at the precinct, district or randomly selected audit. Anyone who tried to cheat, would have to change or steal my ballot.

Electronic screen voting should be reserved for special needs people, and should PRINT out the same ballot that the rest of us fill in.

That would be less expensive, faster, less prone to abuse, and absolutely verifiable.

What's wrong with that?

Re:That's not really the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17652066)

Other than the fact that it's a complete lie in terms of expense nothing is wrong with that. Paper trails are not cheap. Why is it that Slashdot, which will trumpet the advantages of electronic systems everywhere, continue the bullshit myth that paper ballots are cheap! Paper ballots, and keeping them for reasonable periods of time, and safeguarding ballots in their massive numbers, and bringing them back for recount after recount, is expensive. Period. Really think about how many pieces of paper and the level of security you'd want to be 'sure' that the paper trail hasn't been doctored. Really think about how much expense you are adding into the process.

Now saying that you don't trust machines and yadda yadda yadda. Well, in New York we've used mechnical voting machines for decades, and nobody is complaining about them. The only difference is auditing of the machines. An auditable machine with lockable features and 'programming' is as secure as any ballot. Write each ballot onto a burn once piece of memory with a voter ID and you'd have something as traceable as paper and a 100 times less likely to be wrong assuming you've audited your software before hand.

Re:freaking me out (4, Interesting)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651946)

Stolen elections

One thing to keep in mind is that correlation != causation. The use of electronic voting machines is highly suspect, but it's not a smoking gun. It could be as simple as the voting machines were problematic for the democratic population segment. Another possibility is that the areas deploying the machines did so because they were more Republican leaning to begin with. (Remember, electronic voting was a push from Bush after the 2000 "hanging chad" scandals.)

So more evidence is still needed to determine if the election was actually stolen. Certainly, this does add credence to the possibility.

Oh, and in case anyone is wondering where I stand on this:

1. I am republican. Truth be told, I've become disgusted with both parties. Yet I'm too conservative to go libratarian.
2. I think the government should mandate that Diebold is no longer allowed to sell voting machines to the government as they are "unsuitable" to tally votes according to legal requirements.
3. If the vote was stolen, it should be exposed. As should all the dirty laundry of politicians. Sadly, too much will remain hidden. :(

Re:freaking me out (0, Troll)

exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) | more than 7 years ago | (#17652048)

Let's take this apart:
*sigh* Stolen elections, terrorist conspiracies.
Well that's a nice rhetorical move. Dump election fraud in with other conspiracies without a shred of reason for doing so.
...but he's not Adolph Hilter.
Few people claim he is. But by denying the straw man you make a nice segue to your next point which is debatable:
Heck, he's not even Richard Nixon.
All this talk about how he engineers fake elections and terrorist attacks -- all from a guy who everyone ridicules as been a moron ... I think people need a reality check.
You really need to get a grip on the English language and how it is used. There is no contradiction between thinking Bush is a moron and thinking his administration are cunning. People use Bush to stand for "Bush and his administration". It's called metonymy [wikipedia.org] (Wikipedia even give a similar example.). Even children get metonymy, though they don't know it by name.
America voted Bush in.
So you say. If anyone disagrees, just lump it in with fake terrorism.
The first time because he was a friendly likable guy and the Lewinsky scandal scoured them on Clinton/Gore.
This may be true.
He won the second time because they felt he was protecting them from danger and wanted to give him a chance to win the war.
You're not arguing any point. You're just making an assertion based on ignoring the original story.
Bush won. Both times. Get over it. In 2008 you'll have a shot at the White House again, and it'll be be your election to lose.
More assertions and some patronising insults.

Do you have anything to say that isn't ignorant, dishonest or plain insulting?

Re:freaking me out (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 7 years ago | (#17652052)

No one is suggesting Bush is the one to rig the elections. Bush is just a puppet of the neo-conservatives. A sort of monkey-puppet.

About "Dubya" (4, Insightful)

AltGrendel (175092) | more than 7 years ago | (#17652086)

This quote reminds me of the current Bush administration:

Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

I'll bite, the first time he lost (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17652152)

The first time because he was a friendly likable guy

Umm the first time he won on a technicality. in all reality, he lost, but our system is fucked up so he ended up president.

Re:freaking me out (2, Insightful)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 7 years ago | (#17652236)

Bush and his administration are fear-mongers, pushing their plans for, funnily enough, world domination and personal profit by making your average American think we need to do things their way to survive the terrorists.

To boot, the Iraq war civilian casualties lie somewhere between 150,000 and over half a million, depending on who you ask. That's a lot of innocent people killed for a cause the world wasn't behind.

Here's a hint: you want to save the world? Cut global economics. Stop screwing other countries over with your mega-corporations underselling the locals, forcing them to give up their lives and culture to be part of your conglomerate or die. Enterpreneurs are the heart of American economics: the ability to thrive and grow and the freedom to do it is why America is a superpower economically. But it's about time we start managing the floodgates of our enthusiasm and start working WITH other countries instead of just trampling them and using what's left to sell our goods.

Not this crap again (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17651584)

Why didn't Kerry win? Because he was a weak candidate with little going for him other than not being Bush. His entire campaign was essentially "I'm not Bush! I may have voted for everything he did, but I'm not him!"

Bush won because many voters, myself included, thought Bush was responsible for cleaning up his own mess, and that Kerry had absolutely no ability to do so.

The simple truth is that, while it may be statistically unlikely, the final voting tally gives us the truth: Bush won. They may be 95% confident that he didn't, but that doesn't mean that the final 5% can't happen. It did.

Bush won the election because Kerry was a wishy-washy asshole. It's that simple.

Re:Not this crap again (2)

kalirion (728907) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651788)

The simple truth is that, while it may be statistically unlikely, the final voting tally gives us the truth: Bush won. They may be 95% confident that he didn't, but that doesn't mean that the final 5% can't happen. It did.

Obviously he won. The question is whether or not the votes that gave him the win were genuine.

Re:Not this crap again (1)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651916)

It has been 2 years now, and Bush has not cleaned up his own mess, therefor everybody who thought he could was wrong.

Re:Not this crap again (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17652084)

It has been 2 years now, and Bush has not cleaned up his own mess, therefor everybody who thought he could was wrong.

You are wrong. Just because someone doesn't do something does not mean they are incapable. Furthermore, just because someone doesn't do something does not mean that people that think he is capable are wrong.

For example, it has been 2 years now, and I have not gone to the doctor. Does that mean that I am incapable of going to do a doctor? Does it mean anyone who thinks I can go to a doctor is wrong?

Re:Not this crap again (2, Insightful)

Jay Clay (971209) | more than 7 years ago | (#17652082)

"Bush won because many voters, myself included, thought Bush was responsible for cleaning up his own mess, and that Kerry had absolutely no ability to do so."

While you may feel Bush was responsible for cleaning up his messes, do you feel like he actually took responsibility? If so, how do you feel that's panning out?

So you either feel Bush is meeting the expectations you had for him, or he's not. If he is, and you actually think Kerry would have done worse, then I guess that's your perogative. If he isn't meeting your expectations, I guess the real reason Bush won is because both are assholes but Bush fooled you into thinking he's not as much of one.

Re:Not this crap again (1, Flamebait)

Deadplant (212273) | more than 7 years ago | (#17652094)

First, I agree with you about Kerry.

Second, you sir/madam are an ass.
You voted to re-elect that murderous criminal?
How do you sleep at night? Do you have nightmares about the tens of thousands of dead women and children?

you lost... get over it. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17652336)

Speaking as one of the Bush voters... We sleep great at night. It's the bedwetting liberals who have problems. By looking at your past postings it is clear you are quite bitter about losing the elections.

Re:Not this crap again (3, Insightful)

srobert (4099) | more than 7 years ago | (#17652100)

"Bush won because many voters, myself included, thought Bush was responsible for cleaning up his own mess..."

  Let me get this straight: You let a monkey run about throwing crap at everyone. Then, you have the opportunity to put the monkey back in his cage, but instead you let him back out so that he can clean up all the crap he threw? How's that logic working so far?

Re:Logical Fallacy (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 7 years ago | (#17652202)

Bush won the election because Kerry was a wishy-washy asshole. It's that simple.

Go ahead just invalidate some of the most important policies and procedures that are supposed to make this government/society work by reducing the issue to a simple matter of personal opinion.

Nevermind the rule of law. Nevermind procedures that are the outcome of the rule of law. "I say it, therefore it is!"

The casual attitude the parent and moderators take is the rule of Despots not a Democracy.

Mod parent down. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17652252)

Trolling doesn't change the outcome either. There is no question Bush won in 2004. Let us not forget the fact that Bush is the first president not elected by the people, but chosen by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said when to stop the recount, thus deciding the presidency (and NOT the voters). I'm not saying they chose Bush on purpose, I am saying they should not have intervined in the will of the American people. The "get over it" crowd is the crowd that needs to read this book the most but is the least likely to read it. This book is important so that this kind of crap never happens again. Those ignorant of their history are doomed to repeat it. Do we really want another 2000 election in 2008?

Re:Not this crap again (1)

DietFluffy (150048) | more than 7 years ago | (#17652288)

Why didn't Kerry win? Because he was a weak candidate with little going for him other than not being Bush...Bush won because many voters, myself included, thought Bush was responsible for cleaning up his own mess, and that Kerry had absolutely no ability to do so...Bush won the election because Kerry was a wishy-washy asshole. It's that simple.

These kinds of generalizations are clearly ridiculous when you consider that a 2% shift in the votes of ONE state (Ohio) would have completely changed the outcome of the election.

If Kerry did get those extra 118,599 votes (0.03% of total US population), would you be here today calling Bush a weak candidate with no ability to govern?

What happened in 2006? (1, Insightful)

xzvf (924443) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651614)

Did "THEY" forget how to cheat in 2006? Or did "THEY" want Bush to win in 2000 and 2004 knowing he would destroy the Republican majority in Congress? Or did "THEY" ?

It's hard to cheat in a landslide (3, Insightful)

benhocking (724439) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651752)

I'm not saying they cheated in '04, but the '06 results don't disprove it. They can only cheat so much without getting caught. With the huge backlash in '06, it would have been much more difficult to pull off.

Re:What happened in 2006? (2, Interesting)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651774)

The problem is, you can only cheat just so much without making it terribly obvious. If your candidates win all the elections all the time, everybody knows you are cheating. However, if you use cheating just to give your team an edge, you can get away with it. If the elections are close, you can flip them; if not, you would attract a lot of attention if the outcome was wildly different than all of the polls.

I heard some story somewhere that there was the same level of 'discrepancies' in the vote in 2006; but that it wasn't enough to turn elections. The author claimed that there *was* cheating, but that the turnout was so great that the cheating didn't flip the election.

Secure tallying (0, Offtopic)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651618)

Mod me offtopic, but I believe this issue is important enough to burn a little karma. There are all kind of problems with current voting system. The only solution, as far as I see, is to put the power of counting the vote in the hands of the voter. Voting is basically allowing voters to affect the outcome of the election by exactly one vote for each office or issue. There is no kind of verified ballot system that lets the voter know that their ballot is counted in the official tally.

Here's what I wrote [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org] the last time this discussion came up on slashdot:
"What I'm envisioning is some kind of method where votes can be tallied, and the running tally can be periodically published during the count. I imagine it would have some kind of hashing technology, like PGP, where tallies are perhaps encoded in a string, and the string is published. The hashing token, or whatever mechanism allowed a vote to be legitimately added to the tally, would be passed from one voter to another, after they voted. This puts the power to count votes into the hand of the voters, rather than a poorly-trained election volunteer, a partisan, or a hackable machine. Because of the constraints of the token and hashing, a voter can only vote as they are allowed, without destroying the tally hash string."

One problem with secure tallying is that you want to make sure that your vote is counted in the official tally, but you don't want others to deduce how you voted from the official tally. At this point, I imagine one voter passing the official tally to the next voter. That way you can be certain you have affected the tally, and the design of the system constrains you to only one vote. Periodically, perhaps every hour, the official tally is publicly released. Nobody can then figure out how you voted; they only know how the crowd voted in the past hour.

Re:Secure tallying (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651876)

"What I'm envisioning is some kind of method where votes can be tallied, and the running tally can be periodically published during the count.

We don't do that to avoid the potential for two things: Mob Rule, in which people decide not to bother to go make their voice heard when it appears [to them] that it would be unheard anyway, or they jump on the bandwagon to go join the winning team, and to avoid premature calling of the vote leading to same. Interestingly, this last actually occurred during the 2000 election as one of Bush's relatives felt free to prematurely call the vote, which is credited with stopping a lot of democrats from bothering to vote.

Re:Secure tallying (1)

dcskier (1039688) | more than 7 years ago | (#17652000)

from a tech point of view sounds good, but in reality, not so much. the avg person would have too much trouble understanding it, wouldn't follow up, and it would still be susceptible to hacking the process by the volunteers or the machine handling it. even worse it would make it even more likely for the poorly-trained election volunteer to make honest mistakes. the confusion on the common voter trying to comprehend the system would lead to people saying it was still a 'black box' of technology or process and even worse would lead many to say they were cheated out of a vote when it fact they just couldn't figure out how the damn system worked. let's keep the system as simple as possible

yes libs, we stole the election (4, Funny)

Dr Kool, PhD (173800) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651634)

It was all part of the evil Karl Rove trifecta of evil. First we stole the election, then we steered hurricane Katrina right into New Orleans (with the patented Karl Rove Neocon Magic Weather Machine), and to complete the hat trick we blew up the levies to flood the black parts of town. It was a great success, just like the time we went back in time with Microsoft Word 1972 edition to make a fool out of Dan Rather.

If the Republicans own the elections... (1, Troll)

hanssprudel (323035) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651636)

... what happened in November? Did they forget to press the "cheat" button, or did they maybe lose on purpose in a conspiracy to discredit all the people who showed how they cheated before? (How fiendish of them!)

The Democrats lost in 2004 because they had a crappy candidate, and let the republicans control the debate. Get over it already.

Re:If the Republicans own the elections... (1)

nagora (177841) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651804)

what happened in November? Did they forget to press the "cheat" button, or did they maybe lose on purpose in a conspiracy to discredit all the people who showed how they cheated before?

Or maybe the vote was 6% against them instead of the 5% they got by cheating.

Listen: we all know they cheated their balls off. It's not even difficult to find the evidence. The Republicans cheated, we all know it, put it behind you and just make sure it doesn't happen again, okay?

TWW

Ob. Simpsons (2, Funny)

Lord_Slepnir (585350) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651642)

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

This just about sums up my sentiments for voting for either of the two major political parties.

Exit Polls are Inaccurate (1, Insightful)

MBraynard (653724) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651662)

Hi,

I actually have conducted them for media outlets. I was pretty young at the time though the way they get these exit pollers is pretty much the same: low paying, single-day temp employees.

They are often wildly innacurate because many folks choose not to participate - mostly people who are Republican - and because they miss absentee voters - also mostly Republicans as in Ohio and in other states the Rs did a huge absentee vote program where Ds mostly focus on the 48-hour GOTV effort of driving indigents to polling places.

Anyway, it's easy to be part of the slashherd hivemind and believe a couple of clowns that have a few letters after their names doing, what I think Breshnev referred to as, 'using statistics to turn excriment into bullets.'

RTFR (2, Informative)

benhocking (724439) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651818)

They are often wildly innacurate because many folks choose not to participate - mostly people who are Republican - and because they miss absentee voters - also mostly Republicans as in Ohio and in other states the Rs did a huge absentee vote program where Ds mostly focus on the 48-hour GOTV effort of driving indigents to polling places.
From the review:
The "Reluctant Bush Respondant" theory looks extremely unlikely: response rates actually look slightly better in Bush strongholds than in Kerry strongholds;

Re:Exit Polls are Inaccurate (5, Interesting)

faedle (114018) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651844)

Historically, exit polls have been amazingly accurate. Only in the last two elections have there been a wide disparity between the exit polling numbers and the official vote count. Secondly, in the last election data, why is there a wide disparity between exit polling data and the official vote count primarily in areas that used touch-screen voting with no paper trail, but yet be dead-on in areas with paper ballots?

Re:Exit Polls are Inaccurate (1)

MadAhab (40080) | more than 7 years ago | (#17652268)

This alone is prime evidence that, if not stolen, the elections were at least botched by faulty voting machines.

Similar comparisons abound in FL-13, 2006 - the undervote on manual count ballots was something like 2.5%, while on electronic voting machines, used only in the "loser"'s strongholds, the undervote was over 17%.

Something stinks. And the conservative types who want to cry sour grapes are either fools or enemies of democracy; if you can steal an election without detection, sooner or later, it will happen. The conservatives seem suspiciously certain it won't be stolen *from* them - so either they are fools, or they expect that Republicans, if anyone, will succeed in stealing elections via electronic voting machines.

Re:Exit Polls are Inaccurate (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651940)

If they don't participate, how do you know they're republican?

Absenty votes are always mentioned seperatly spicifically because they can't be measured in exit polls.

Exit polls are the most accurate kind of polls.
The information is fresh, the process is well known.

There wasn't a 'statistical aboration' there were hugh descrepencies.

Re:Exit Polls are Inaccurate (1)

brpr (826904) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651964)

They are often wildly innacurate because many folks choose not to participate - mostly people who are Republican

If they didn't participate, how did you know they were Republican?

Re:Exit Polls are Inaccurate (1)

stevedcc (1000313) | more than 7 years ago | (#17652046)

Hmmm, and how do you know that the people who choose not to participate are republican?

According to the review above, the choices people make in choosing to answer exit polls has been considered. By serious statisticians. In my view, that overrules any "I did this job and I don't think republicans answer exit polls".

Maybe you want to find some serious evidence to back up your argument, rather than anecdotal stuff?

Re:Exit Polls are Inaccurate (1)

geeber (520231) | more than 7 years ago | (#17652374)

Hmmm, and how do you know that the people who choose not to participate are republican?

Three replies to the grandparent, all with the same clever GOTCHA!

Compare the demographics of the exit polls to the demographics of the registered voters. Not so hard.

Greg Palast (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17651680)

... already reported on all these incidents in his two great books:

The Best Democracy Money Can Buy and Armed Madhouse.

Excellent Reads if you feel like having your mind blown.

Just to let everyone know: I LIE to exit pollers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17651706)

I hate people that are hanging outside the polling stations asking me questions... guess what: I LIE
The numbers have NO meaning.

Speaking of statistics (2, Interesting)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651720)

Granted, something needs explaining and voting machines are vulnerable. But what are the chances that a conspiracy of this magnitude has remained secret? Not to say that an election can't be rigged, but wouldn't there be so many people with direct involvement that it would be impossible to keep everyone silent? Until someone steps forward and says "I did X & Y at the direction of Mr Z," I'm going to lump it along side of "The CIA killed Kennedy." Possible, but lacking solid evidence.

Re:Speaking of statistics (3, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651924)

But what are the chances that a conspiracy of this magnitude has remained secret?

A single person in the right place could have compromised all electronic voting machines from a given company. Just something to think about.

Re:Speaking of statistics (1)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 7 years ago | (#17652070)

Twice, by all accounts.

Re:Speaking of statistics (2, Interesting)

NoOneInParticular (221808) | more than 7 years ago | (#17652206)

Yeah, how can a conspiracy of this scale stay unnoticed, without someone leaking? You would need at the very least ONE programmer to make the actual change. How on earth can they keep something of that scale quiet?

Okay, okay, in all fairness, you need about five. The two brothers that are CEOs at Diebold and ES&S, Karl Rove, and two unwitting programmers that quite possibly make a requested change from their CEO without being told what it is really for.

Are we blind? (2, Insightful)

serial_crusher (591271) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651740)

People are too eager to believe that the election was rigged, but they're simply outraged at the possibility that the exit polls could have been botched or rigged themselves.

I still haven't been sold on electronic voting (2, Insightful)

MillenneumMan (932804) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651768)

Seems to me it is a solution without a problem. Couldn't you avoid vote-counting concerns entirely by casting paper ballots, then allowing anyone with an interest in the counting process to witness the tally. Count the votes publicly, perhaps in a gymnasium or library, with a camera to record the counting process as well as to transmit a feed to an internet site. I believe they do something similar in Canada now. I would gladly exchange the additional time necessary to conduct the count manually with witnesses for a repeat of the Florida fiasco during the Presidential election in 2000.

Poll workers often adjust the results (2, Insightful)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651770)

Anyone who lives in or near Chicago know that poll workers and authorities have ways to adjust the totals. Nationally, I wouldn't be surprised if local polling place authorities tip it one way or another by 1-3% every two years. (Remember the Kennedy election supposedly tipped by an unlikely surge of Chicago Democrats?) However, I'd just rack it up to real democracy in action.

In 2004 I'm perfectly willing to believe (and accept) that the average pollworker (usually someone who likes stable government, whatever theit political leaning) was more willing to give W the benefit of the doubt and helped him win a squeaker. In 2006 it was hard to find people (even fans of stable government) who wouldn't have liked the current president to hit the road, so I'm not surprised the mystery surge of 2004 disappeared in 2006; even W's former fans were sick of his s*** by then.

An Agenda (1, Informative)

Prysorra (1040518) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651772)

From Wikipedia:

"Joel Bleifuss is an American journalist. He is the editor of In These Times, a progressive news magazine based in Chicago. Bleifuss has worked as an investigative reporter and columnist for In These Times since 1986.

Bleifuss writes frequently on US politics and foreign policy, and environmental affairs. His articles have been featured on Project Censored's list of suppressed news stories more than any other American journalist."

dead horse? (1)

Wedge1212 (591767) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651780)

I'll get the whip you bring the horse.

Who doesn't like exit polls? (1)

tarlos25 (1036572) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651790)

Seriously, I wish there'd been some exit polls where I voted. I was highly insulted that only the large cities get them. I know why, but it's still frustrating. On the topic of stealing elections. It would have been pathetically easy to do. And it may very well be that there was election fraud. But at this point, I'm tired of hearing about it. We've got a better Congress in (though I'm not happy with our particular congressmen who were elected this time, Sen. Ensign and Rep. Heller) and hopefully we're looking at a good future.

Just so you know (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651838)

exit polls are the most accurate kind of poll.

This is what you get with DRE (1)

Paul Crowley (837) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651850)

To those pooh-poohing this sort of investigation: with a voting system as untrustworthy as DRE, this is the inevitable outcome. Poring over exit polls looking for voting pattern discrepancies is the only way to have any idea if the machines are accurately reporting the vote. If you don't like it, join the campaign for a voting system that can be seen to be fair on its own merits.

Lets get over it already (2, Insightful)

beerdini (1051422) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651866)

Am I the only one sick of all these election analysis books and articles? Whats done is done already. Even if a smoking gun was exposed saying that blatant fraud was discovered in one or both elections, what would it accomplish? As much as I'd love to press reset and go back to 2000, that ain't gonna happen. We can't suddenly say all policy created in the last 7 years is invalid, that would cause as much of a mess as the last 7 years created.

Lets just say, yes there was questionable events of the last 2 elections. These are the issues in question, now that we know what to look for lets make sure it doesn't happen again. I still think there is lots of work that needs to be done, and even if we go to an all computerized system, there should be a possibly 2 form receipt form that prints out. First so the voter has in their sweaty little palms who they voted for so there is no doubt. Second, a paper record in the event of a recount is required there is a paper copy that the voter submitted as an endorsed copy of their vote, (not signed endorsed, anonymity is still protected, just turning it in is the final step of the process), and thirdly, some people just aren't comfortable with computerized voting, this way if there is any question before they walk out of the poll, they know who they voted for, and maybe even have a "receipt" for themselves just to be sure.

Re:Lets get over it already (2, Informative)

syphax (189065) | more than 7 years ago | (#17652124)

Even if a smoking gun was exposed saying that blatant fraud was discovered in one or both elections, what would it accomplish?

A strong impetus for election reform, to minimize the likelihood of future fraud?

Too soon. (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651878)

At this point, we are far too close to these events and their repercussions to even begin to hope of the slightest possibility of imagining how history looking back impartially on this fiasco.

For a real, insightful, bias-free look at the 2000/2004 election controversy, wait for one of our great-grandchildren to write it. Until then, either accept or reject the various biased accounts, parsing them accordingly as your owm bias permits.

Mod me offtopic, but... (-1, Offtopic)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651884)

...why the fuck do people care if someone knows how they vote? I mean, two minutes of a conversation with someone politically usually tells you 1. Where they position themselves on the left/right/middle spectrum
2. Whether they support the president currently in power
3. If they do not support that president, the person they WOULD support

(For the record, I always vote "write-in" and leave it blank, or just simply vote for whomever the independent is...the current two-party system makes me really hate this fucking country sometimes.)

People are so quick to say "it's none of your damned buisness who I voted for" and yet allow their political (or anti-political) views to hang out there, and in some people's cases get pissed and pushy about it.

Christ people. Learn some fucking consistency.

Re:Mod me offtopic, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17652258)

It's tradition from times when voting for the wrong guy could get you beaten up by the local goons. There's a reason it's called a secret ballot.

Interesting book but... (1, Informative)

2.7182 (819680) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651906)

My copy physically fell apart 2 weeks after buying it. (Hardcopy). I think the binding just disintegrated.

Paper trails are worse than useless (1)

unitron (5733) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651934)

It's trivial to get a computer to print one thing and do something else.

You know whether or not an ATM screws up your account but you have no way of knowing if it added up everybody's account correctly.

Somewhere out there on the intarweb tube is a story about how the Cleveland Plain Dealer had conducted pre-election polling for years and been impressively close to how the elections turned out each time and then along came the 2004 elections and they were wildly off in certain precincts, all of whom went for Bush. It's worth looking for.

Re:Paper trails are worse than useless (1)

Prysorra (1040518) | more than 7 years ago | (#17652178)

Or it could be someone else was stopped from cheating :-)

Yes, but remember (1)

porkchop_d_clown (39923) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651948)

techniques to prevent fraud, like requiring IDs, purging voter rolls of people who've died or moved, or using ballots that can be actually recounted (like punch cards) are actually attempts by the Republicans to suppress Democratic voters.

Because, just because you need ID to buy a booze or cigs doesn't mean it's reasonable to require ID to vote.

Replacing the electoral college (4, Insightful)

OglinTatas (710589) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651954)

what shall we replace it with? the exit polls?

The point of the electoral college is similar to the point of the senate. They are both there to ensure the STATES have a voice in government. This is the United STATES of America, but people have come to believe it is the Federal Republic of America. If you believe that you personally were disenfranchised by the last 2 elections because you didn't vote for Bush (I didn't vote for Bush the last 3 times, btw) then maybe it is not so much a sign that the elecoral college is at fault, it is that the central government has grown way too powerful and has swept the individual states into irrelevancy. The best government is at the local level, where you are better aware of your governing needs than some beltway insider 1000 miles away. Next best is state government, only 100 miles away.

I do agree voting machines need a papertrail, though I am vehemently opposed to the idea of giving the voter a receipt--anything that a voter can carry out to indicate how he voted will inevitably lead to coercive voting. If the local political machine can make sure you voted "correctly," (or else!) that is no better than non-audited electronic boxes manufactured by supporters of that political machine.

Oh I get it. (1, Insightful)

Morinaga (857587) | more than 7 years ago | (#17652110)

So the exit poll results are more accurate than the actual counted ballots. That's the premise of this book. Call me crazy but I'd go with the opposite. I'm zany like that.

Sounds like a Truther to me. We need to believe that there was a conspiracy of a magnitude that spanned numerous people who were able to coordinate illegal and treasonous actions. People who planned and coordinated a coup of 10 million votes....secretly. Pass the cool aid.

Two Words (1)

huckda (398277) | more than 7 years ago | (#17652182)

Electoral Votes

What's the point? (1)

Speed Pour (1051122) | more than 7 years ago | (#17652186)

I'm a bit confused as to why this is still an issue. Did they or didn't they cheat in 2000/2004!?!? I hate to say it, but the damage is done. Sure, a few people belong in prison, but I have little doubt that they belong in prison for plenty of other reasons as well (and they've dodged those bullets easily enough).

Fact is, we already know that they COULD have cheated. Voter registration, dead people voting, and Diebold machines hacked with VB code; these are obvious and proven methods for cheating. We've proven the methods...now instead of wasting time speculating if they were used, let's spend time taking those tools away from the people who might use them in the next election!

The only benefit to showing the methods were probably used (since it's almost impossible to prove) is to put people behind bars. We all know that nobody would go to jail for this, so let's spend the energy on finding the holes and plugging them up.

Oh yeah, and let's fix half of the fundamental problems with voting and switch over to Instant Runoff Voting [wikipedia.org]

Nintendo! (2, Funny)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 7 years ago | (#17652242)

Oh wait no, I mean LInux! Oh wait no I mean Firefly, oh wait no, what competition was this again?

How is this news for nerds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17652254)

Such a shame that even where there are suppose to be "nerds" (Some word that is suppose to be relivant to one who is "smart"), you can still see lots of ignorance, and bitching about something that is so irrelivant on a large scale.

-=Aubrey=-

Perhaps... (1)

pcnetworx1 (873075) | more than 7 years ago | (#17652376)

At least in my area, I am aware that every single polling area is full of people who have been running it for 40 years on average. They really have stopped caring about issues of the future, and more about more discounts for them now before they die, because hey, they'll be dead when issue "blah" becomes relevent!

To increase accuracy and quality, I bet using citizens of US military draft age (18-21 primarily) would help, because they will give more of a damn about future issues.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>